On Thu, March 28, 2013 07:59, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 28/03/2013 04:56, Michael Mol wrote: >> On 03/27/2013 05:51 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> On 27/03/2013 22:41, Michael Mol wrote: >>>> The case for systemd is twofold: >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> 2) Reduce the amount of CPU and RAM consumed when you're talking about >>>> booting tens of thousands of instances simultaneously across your >>>> entire >>>> infrastructure, or when your server instance might be spun up and down >>>> six times over the course of a single day. >>> >>> I seems to me that this is rather a niche quite-specialized case >>> (albeit >>> a rather large instance of a niche case). In which case it would be >>> better implemented as Redhat MagicSauce for their cloud environment >>> where it would be exactly tuned to that case's need. >> >> But it's a great deal cheaper to convince volunteers and package >> maintainers to put in the time to build the necessary service files of >> their own accord. Add in the complexity of parallel boot, and you can >> induce upstream to fix their own race-driven bugs rather than have to >> pay for that development directly. >> > > I don't follow the thought stream here Michael. > It feels like there's a word or a sentence missing (it's just not > hanging together)
Alan, I think what Michael is trying to say is that by getting other distros to package systemd, other distros will help RedHat to find and fix the problems systemd is causing. -- Joost
