interesting discussion. I'm happy that there is a decision, and I'm pretty sure systemd will bring lots of benefits to Linux users.
But the question for us is: how do we distinguish an average experienced linux admin from a newbie? If an average experienced linux admin takes a test next February, does he usually have to deal with systemd already? I'm not talking about all the early adopters on this list. But my impression is: this is not discussed and decided here. We'll be presented with a result. Can somebody point me to an explanation on how the process of developing a new version of the objectives looks like? Ingo Am 16.02.2014 01:51, schrieb Bryan J Smith: > Alessandro Selli <[email protected]> wrote: >> I did notice, to my mighty disappointment, that you sneaked your >> comment through just minutes before I did! :-) > > Yeah, well, I also have read a lot of non-public discussions on the > matter as well. Interesting times indeed. But I wanted to wait until > Canonical-Ubuntu decided, not just Debian. That way, if it was both > projects, then there was a clear reason to start developing _full_ set > of *d subsystem objectives, not just systemd identification. > > Because, in reality, I try not to get involved with the politics. > It's easy to drop into contributor agreements, organizations and > projects unable to finish developments or get things working, etc... > I mean, we haven't even talked Mir v. Weyland ... as yet another > example. > > Some people look at these things as win/lose, them/us, etc... I never > do. I look at the real case of what open source developments are > getting adopted, what mindshare do they have, and what things do they > solve. > > I mean ... even Red Hat adopted Upstart for RHEL6, as Fedora had done > so by Fedora 9. It was the best solution at the time. Fedora 15 > changed to systemd, and RHEL7 is now doing the same. Not everything > is there, and some legacy components will ship. But many *d solutions > will be in RHEL7. > > I always have and will continue to advocate people fund organizations > so they can hire more GPL developers so we all -- the community -- > win. E.g., if your organization is operating in the black, and that > is because you rely on Ubuntu LTS, please purchase Canonical > Advantage. > > I still advocate identification of Upstart and related event files in > the next iteration, Blooms Knowledge and possibly even Understand > (weight 1-2). But the objectives will need a good refresh eventually > to appropriate cover *d, because its far more than just an init > system. > > In fact, if you read some of the DTC posts and debates -- at least the > non-political ones -- there's reason why most of the people who were > not employees of one company recognized the *d solutions for what they > were. And that includes very, very broad adoption, development, > standards and related support from more than just the "two big > enterprise names." > > It's ironic how many people "paint" things ... until they look at them > closely. Then the technical merits are able to take hold, and choices > can be made. I'm not saying the *d solutions are flawless. But I am > very frustrated at times when people say *d solutions introduce > issues, when those issues not only already existed, but *d solutions > address them better. > > I've started to call such people who blame *d for things that are not > *d issues, much less often not addressed or made worse by legacy > mechanisms or one-off solutions, "SysV Assumists." > > The same could be said of Red Hat's KVM "ecosphere." > > A lot of people said a lot of things about KVM, not recognize Red Hat > developed not only libvirt, but oVirt, deltaCloud, SPICE and other > solutions so they not only work with KVM, but also Xen and VMware. > Unfortunately, something like oVirt -- a full, open source management > framework and GUI -- was a financial threat to EMC/VMware and > XenSource, respectively. So their interfaces lagged. > > But lo'n behold, here comes OpenStack. Basically Canonical, NASA and > Rackspace made Red Hat, without involving them, the #3 contributor > because they used all those components (Red Hat instantly became #1 > when it focused on OpenStack). This also resulted in 95% of OpenStack > deployments being on KVM. Why? I think Shuttleworth himself pegged > it best in the Wired magazine interface last year. Without Red Hat, > you don't run OpenStack on anything, much less outside of an Ubuntu > distribution, including competitors like VMware. > > Because most of what Red Hat developments is not just for Fedora/RHEL, > not just for Linux, but a lot of interfaces in general, including > commercial vendors, if they want to interface. I mean, Red Hat can > only do so much without their involvement, and I've seen that in > everything from Cluster Suite to OpenStack now. > > And I'm not even touching SSSD/IPA, and how all those years of distros > ignoring and not packaging 389 and NSS (Netscape Security Services) is > now coming back to haunt them. > > SSSD is pretty much the best solution, and could be considered the > Linux equivalent of NT LSA. And IPA ... well ... it's cake. No > longer do you have to be a DNS, Kerberos, LDAP guru ... let alone > IPAv3 now emulates itself as an AD Forest with a Global Catalog ... > solving the greater problem is a very different way than Samba has, > all while handling multi-domain/multi-forest. Heck, SSSD is far > better than Winbind too. > > A lot of people say this or that based on vendor alignment. I don't > know if that's the long-standing issue with people feeling ties or > even loyalty to brand names. But I do know good solutions when I see > them, especially when others ignore the real, production issues that > are constantly going on at major accounts and major partners I deal > with. > > -- bjs > > P.S. As always, my opinions are mine alone. > > -- > Bryan J Smith - UCF '97 Engr - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > "In a way, Bortles is the personification of the UCF football > program. Each has many of the elements that everyone claims to > want, and yet they are nobody's first choice. Coming out of high > school, Bortles had the size and the arm to play at a more > prestigious program. UCF likewise has the market size and the > talent base to play in a more prestigious conference than the > American Athletic. But timing and circumstances conspired to put > both where they are now." -- Andy Staples, CNN-Sports Illustrated > _______________________________________________ > lpi-examdev mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev > -- Linuxhotel GmbH, Geschäftsführer Dipl.-Ing. Ingo Wichmann HRB 20463 Amtsgericht Essen, UStID DE 814 943 641 Antonienallee 1, 45279 Essen, Tel.: 0201 8536-600, http://www.linuxhotel.de -- Linuxhotel GmbH, Geschäftsführer Dipl.-Ing. Ingo Wichmann HRB 20463 Amtsgericht Essen, UStID DE 814 943 641 Antonienallee 1, 45279 Essen, Tel.: 0201 8536-600, http://www.linuxhotel.de _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
