On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Leon Fauster <leonfaus...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
>>> But so did other systems, but they later found out that sometimes you have
>>> to break this backwards to infinity compatibility in order to get some big
>>> progress.
>>
>> Only if the design was bad in the first place. And if the design was
>> really bad, there wouldn't be any users to infuriate by breaking the
>> interfaces they use. But the unix design that linux and linux
>> distributions copied was pretty good, including the way init started
>> things.
>
> was - the requirements at that time were nearly/completely
> different. We have different scenarios right now.
Really? What application could you not start with sysv init syntax?
What CPU has become too slow to start things serially? What feature
do you need that could not have been added without breaking other
existing work?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
