On 2012-01-06 19:05:04 (+0100), Graham Anderson <graham.anderson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 28 Dec 2011 15:49:29 Michal Kubeček wrote:
I don't. So far, I haven't seen any (useful) feature that systemd would provide that couldn't be with much less effort achived without it.
I'm willing to accept this arguement if you can demonstrate that in sysvinit/scripts it for the features listed on the following page.
Agreed. Michal, I don't think your statement is really fair, nor honest. systemd has a boatload of features that sysvinit cannot and will never provide. Those features are actually quite useful (starting on demand, cgroups, portable scripts, ...), and even provide potential for a lot of cool things that weren't really possible before (such as the D-Bus API). Sure, it's not 100% mature yet, and sure, as long as we haven't ported all our init scripts to systemd it's only half as useful. And I have also tried to understand how to write and install systemd stuff to start daemons and it definitely hasn't passed the "10 minute test". It definitely lacks better documentation, or I've been too lazy, I wouldn't exclude that from the equation :) The only thing we could honestly argue about is the time frame: whether it was too early to introduce systemd (too late to discuss that, IMHO it was fine ;)), and when we should dephase sysvinit, but there's another thread on that. Let's please try to refrain from seeing or stating everything as all black or all white, concentrate on objective pros and cons, and discuss this as engineers :) cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf