On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 21.07.10 13:29, Chris Adams (cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > Once upon a time, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> said: > > > And when I say/here admin I'd expect to be talking about a human (not > > > some kind of robot that has hardwired commands and can't adapt to > > > changes). > > > > If you only have to manage one system, good for you. I have to manage a > > bunch, and everything that is different _for_no_good_reason_ between > > them is a PITA. Yes, management scripts can be adapted, but now they > > have to handle systems A-Z one way, systems AA-ZZ another (but > > apparently not for all services, try to guess which?). That makes an > > admin unhappy and less likely to deploy any more of systems type AA-ZZ. > > BTW, you are emphasizing that that there was no reason for the stfuf we > do. But you are wrong. There actually is. The reason why we came up with > systemd-install as a counterpart of chkconfig instead of patching > chkconfig is that it actually works very very differently from > it. i.e. beyond the fact that both create symlinks, one in > /etc/systemd/system, the other in /etc/rcN.d/ they have very little in > common. One cares about priorities, the other doesn't. One knows only 6 > runelvels, the other knows arbitrary numbers of targets. One can hook > stuff into runlevels and runlevels only; the other can hook stuff into > any unit. One can actually make the changes effetive immediately, the > other doesn't do that; one can handle sockets and mounts and other kind > of units, the other cannot; and so on and so on. > I think the bigger question is why are we doing this? It really does sound like some developers got together and said "You know what people need? This thing. They need this thing!" Who has been requesting this? What requirements did they give? The problem people seem to be having is the reasons you give in the above paragraph are reasons you yourself invented, and that's a backwards way to do development :-/ > > Or in short: extremism sucks. Please acknoweledge that we try to find a > middle ground, and that we are open for suggestions. Because we are. I > already fixed a couple of issues that were discussed on this mailing > list and added a couple more to my todo list. I won't make everybody > happy, but you have a bigger chance to get your suggestion heard if you > don't take extremist positions, declare sysv the holy grail and say > you'll abandon Fedora if we depart from that. > As mentioned above, it seems like you're trying to find a middle ground between where we are today, and this whole other place you guys invented for seemingly no reason then you felt like coding something. > Yes, I guess being a developer who develops new stuff I like innovation > in interfaces more than administrators who then might end up using > this. But it doesn't really help claiming we had no idea what admins > want and consistently ignore their wishes. Because we actually do have a > pretty good idea. We don't fully share all opinions, but we are aware more > often than not. > "Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein. I'm not calling you a fool, you're clearly not but that quote seems appropriate. Just be extra careful when it's others (sysadmins) that have to live with the consequences of your (developer) decisions. -Mike -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
