3 ms·

Actually the answer is to be slightly more conservative with the approach. No one has to pick up systemd now for example. Leave it a year and see where it is. T

Actually the answer is to be slightly more conservative with the approach. No one has to pick up systemd now for example. Leave it a year and see where it is. The technical merits will be obvious and the technical problems will also be. Moving all the chess pieces at once, which is what is happening is not productive, professional or a sign of experience.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
That's not the case though – systemd has been enabled by default by Fedora for three and a half years or so, and has been steadily adopted since then by most other major distros. Not everybody is moving at once, so why would waiting a year make any difference?
- badgersandjam 12y ago
  This bugzilla query against RHEL 7.0 systemd says otherwise: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&classification=Red%20Hat&component=systemd&product=Red%20Hat%20Enterprise%20Linux%207&query_format=advanced https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_s... A lot of the bug descriptions are quite scarily bad when you consider them in context such as "various loginctl commands not working" etc.
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    So what you mean is "Systemd still has serious bugs," which is nothing to do with whether or not everybody is moving at once. That's the point – if systemd has important bugs they should be fixed. Clearly, the groups responsible for the decision have concluded that the tradeoff is worth it, and have accepted that a large, fundamental change will have issues. That's fine – there are a bunch of other distress you can use that have not adopted systemd, which you can use in the meantime if you disagree.
    - badgersandjam 12y ago
      The two are related. People are shipping production operating systems with systemd that is chock full of bugs. An all consuming tentacle monster like systemd is fine if you want to dogfood it but to throw at paying customers and/or supporters of your distribution is a little off key.

matthewmacleod 12y ago

That's not the case though – systemd has been enabled by default by Fedora for three and a half years or so, and has been steadily adopted since then by most other major distros. Not everybody is moving at once, so why would waiting a year make any difference?

badgersandjam 12y ago
This bugzilla query against RHEL 7.0 systemd says otherwise: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&classification=Red%20Hat&component=systemd&product=Red%20Hat%20Enterprise%20Linux%207&query_format=advanced https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_s... A lot of the bug descriptions are quite scarily bad when you consider them in context such as "various loginctl commands not working" etc.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  So what you mean is "Systemd still has serious bugs," which is nothing to do with whether or not everybody is moving at once. That's the point – if systemd has important bugs they should be fixed. Clearly, the groups responsible for the decision have concluded that the tradeoff is worth it, and have accepted that a large, fundamental change will have issues. That's fine – there are a bunch of other distress you can use that have not adopted systemd, which you can use in the meantime if you disagree.
  - badgersandjam 12y ago
    The two are related. People are shipping production operating systems with systemd that is chock full of bugs. An all consuming tentacle monster like systemd is fine if you want to dogfood it but to throw at paying customers and/or supporters of your distribution is a little off key.