On 28/03/2013 15:16, Michael Mol wrote: > 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. > >
Ah, a definition of "getting" that I was heretofore unfamiliar with. Obviously "getting" doesn't mean what I think it means, it means "forcing without giving the other party much of a choice in the matter by ripping out essential infrastructure and replacing it with something tuned to RedHat, and only RedHat's, needs." Ok, I got it now. Thanks for clearing that up. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
