On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Ingo Wichmann <[email protected]> wrote: > interesting discussion. I'm happy that there is a decision, and I'm pretty > sure systemd will bring lots of benefits to Linux users.
The *d's mostly hook into existing solutions that have been "orphaned" not just from the init process, but real-time system management. They just leverage all of those existing subsystems ... from D-Bus to udev, from socket listeners to I/O status. > But the question for us is: how do we distinguish an average experienced > linux admin from a newbie? I don't follow this. Virtually all distributions will be moving to *d's. So it doesn't matter what someone's "experience level" is, they will need to understand how to deal with the *d's. This isn't the case where some distros do MAC (e.g., SELinux) and some don't. To deal with system management, not just init, knowledge of *d's will be required, even at LPIC-1. > If an average experienced linux admin takes a test next February, > does he usually have to deal with systemd already? ??? Who said the objectives were getting renovated overnight ??? At most I suggested renovating the Objectives in 2015, as Debian and Ubuntu will likely be *d's by 2016. I.e., Ubuntu LTS 14.04 will not have *d's, namely not systemd as the system manager (including init). Although they will have to start "hacking in" select *d's support for dependencies. It won't be until at least the next LTS reelase (e.g., 16.04?) before it is the system. Hence why it should be targeted for the next release. > I'm not talking about all the early adopters on this list. Define "early adopter"? The early adopters of systemd were 2010. Most of the support *d's have been developed over 2011-2012. Now we're starting to see full, Enterprise distributions in 2014 adopt it, both Red Hat and SuSE. It's also taken over Arch and many other "enthusiast" distros as well, beyond just Fedora. It's kinda like SSSD ... distros have adopted it, whether officially or by individual users who need it. The entire *d's "ecosystem" requires sysadmins to understand many things. It removes the need for most add-on and 3rd party ISV "hacks/value-add." ** How much we tackle, and at LPIC-1 and LPIC-2, is the only question. E.g., cgroups are always setup for a process ... so is that LPIC-1? LPIC-2? Probably a combination in both, possibly using Blooms as appropriate. **NOTE: Most of the outrage I've noticed has been from ISVs who will see their products nullified by features in the *d's. It's also why many, many major commercial users of Debian were calling for it ... it's capabilities are beloved in the cloud generation. > But my impression is: this is not discussed and decided here. We'll be > presented with a result. ??? It has been. I suggested waiting for the next revision, given both Debian and Ubuntu have a good 1-2 years of integration ahead of them. It will matter what they do, and what they adopt among all of the *d's, that will influence the objectives. The _only_ thing that's "for certain" is that Upstart won't be the future for them. Again, that's the _only_ thing. > Can somebody point me to an explanation on how the process of > developing a new version of the objectives looks like? They are done periodically. The site covers some of the details, and the archives of this list covers them. In-a-nutshell, if you have objectives to add, share them here and/or on the Wiki. Matt et al. is very, very _open_ to such. In fact, I fully expect him to reach out to me (among others) on the *d's objectives in the future, since I not only track the Fedora/SuSE worlds, but also the Debian/Ubuntu worlds as well. The key is finding the "common denominator" in all the *d's utilized. I mean, systemd is just one component of a greater ecosystem of daemons. Not everyone is going to adopt everything. And the first revision might end up just sticking with just focusing on systemd for init as well, even though systemd goes well outside of init. -- 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
