3 ms·

That is not fair. Because I have explicitly mentioned this in the bug. Quote unquote Docker is only making things even worse - the recommended way of using Do

That is not fair. Because I have explicitly mentioned this in the bug. Quote unquote Docker is only making things even worse - the recommended way of using Docker is shifting gradually to be using poorly-suited PID 1 processes like supervisord. Additionally, there are other places where I mention Docker as a use case. Granted that English is not my first language, but I do not think there was confusion on this being around Docker. In addition the bug title is " Standalone version of systemd to act as a process control system" ...Which was as generic as I could make it. Running an arbitrary job-runner on older system is an implicit use case....But by explicit clarification, I brought in the Docker use case as well. I also explicitly mentioned that we are prepared to use newer kernels within Docker if that is important. P.S. Already, a lot of us work with upgraded kernels because of Docker and this is already acceptable. I WANT to use systemd - but I stand by my claim that this bug is sufficient illustration that there is no intent to support the docker ecosystem. I do not wish to start a flamewar, but I categorically reject your claims of me spreading FUD as deliberately malicious.

TheDong 8y ago
You replied with those lines after the bug was already resolved, and they don't match with your primary bug report well. In fact, they contradict your primary report where you wrote "I do not believe we will upgrade older computers to newer OS" and "it would be great if there was a way we could use systemd+journald in older OS" and "I do understand that systemd needs to be pid 1, but I wonder if a subset of functionality can still be exposed when it is not running as pid 1". Again, all of those things are entirely unrelated to it running as a pid1 in a container, and those parts of your original bug report are what Poettering responded to. You're reading way too much into that one bug. In fact, you could already run systemd in docker before you posted that bug if you go back to my first link to a mailing list thread about the very subject from 2014. Your main bug report made it sound like you were asking to run systemd as pid != 1, which is unrelated to running systemd in docker. Your clarification here only convinces me that you hold a grudge against systemd and wish to interpret benign comments in a bad light because, no matter how many times I read that bug, I cannot understand your claim that the original posting and Poettering's rejection of it is in any way related to running systemd in docker.

TheDong 8y ago

You replied with those lines after the bug was already resolved, and they don't match with your primary bug report well. In fact, they contradict your primary report where you wrote "I do not believe we will upgrade older computers to newer OS" and "it would be great if there was a way we could use systemd+journald in older OS" and "I do understand that systemd needs to be pid 1, but I wonder if a subset of functionality can still be exposed when it is not running as pid 1". Again, all of those things are entirely unrelated to it running as a pid1 in a container, and those parts of your original bug report are what Poettering responded to. You're reading way too much into that one bug. In fact, you could already run systemd in docker before you posted that bug if you go back to my first link to a mailing list thread about the very subject from 2014. Your main bug report made it sound like you were asking to run systemd as pid != 1, which is unrelated to running systemd in docker. Your clarification here only convinces me that you hold a grudge against systemd and wish to interpret benign comments in a bad light because, no matter how many times I read that bug, I cannot understand your claim that the original posting and Poettering's rejection of it is in any way related to running systemd in docker.