On 03/28/2013 03:51 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > 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.
Exactly this.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
