On 08/18/2013 10:29 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, zxq9<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>
>> * The old init system was complicated (in that the defaults aren't uniform).
>> Familiarity with the system triumphed over lack of clear implementation and
>> lack of documentation.
>
> All Linux users and developers were victims of laziness and inertia
> when we stuck with the mess that sysvinit scripts are for as long as
> we did, especially after Solaris and OS X showed the way with SMF and
> launchd. We should've at least moved to declarative init files with
> one bash/dash/sh script to start and stop daemons; we didn't and we've
> fortunately gone beyond that with systemd.
>
>
>> * systemd is a huge effort that isn't doing anything to remedy the
>> situation.
>
> One or two years after the release of EL-7, everyone'll wonder what
> all the anti-systemd fuss was about...

It will be ditched for the precisely the same reasons HAL has been and 
similarly replaced by a system that recognizes where its design mandate 
beginds and ends. What we'll be wondering was perhaps not what all the 
anti-systemd fuss was about, but what all the "keep sysv-style init 
forever" fuss was all about and why the response was yet another HAL 
mistake. Being anti-systemd is not the same thing as being purely 
pro-sysv init.

Immature missteps are a sign of an immature community. I think its 
obvious that as a culture we've inherited a lot of new blood we have not 
yet learned how to metabolize. Unmanaged company politics exacerbate 
this, of course. Sort of like how they did when UNIX went through its 
pains in the 80's -- an era where the incompatible actions of agitating 
for "diversification" while wielding new standards as anticompetitive 
weapons was the norm.