> On Oct 22, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Jeffrey Ollie <j...@ocjtech.us> wrote:
>
> The people that like systemd (like myself) have wisely learned that
> the people that hate systemd, hate it mostly because it's different
> from what came before and don't want to change. There's no way to
> argue rationally with that.
I think you are monumentally misreading the situation.
A) Change is the constant in IT. Staying relevant and employable has put me
through five or more generational shifts in enterprise OS, plus diversions to
Mach, Plan 9, MacOS, etc. Change is normal.
B) Systemd and the Solaris SMF that it conceptually followed have a number of
technical flaws, ranging from obscure interfaces (sometimes requiring source
code to understand) to lack of human readable configs to (at least with SMF,
and as far as I can tell systemd) a lack of ability to even print/dump out the
current dependencies and ordering tree.
C) In both systemd and SMF a tremendous unpreparedness of training and
documentation accompanied rollout. These were not reasonably enterprise ready
at launch, or now.
D) The architectural case that the services adopted in systemd over time belong
there or are safe there is not proven, and not that I see well argued or
documented. Conglomerated services are at least to be eyed skeptically.
I did not closely follow systemd's development but it is evident from a
distance that operator feedback in the community and to Sun regarding SMF flaws
was somehow missed in systemd's development as they did the same wrong things.
A change this big deserves architectural clarity and justification. We get
snide comments about change being good and core developers Linus evidently
feels are unsafe.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
