Over the last couple of weeks I have been looking over and testing the systemd. Thanks for all the hard work and interesting ideas.
One issue that has come to mind is the quality and structure of the documentation. The quality and clarity of the documentation can be as important as the quality and clarity of the code. As a relatively young project the scope and implementation has shifted as new ideas have been tested. This has resulted in two areas of mis-communication: 1. What is systemd? 2. What is systemd... now? One suggestion would be to refer to systemd as a 'process manager.' Calling it a system manager seems a bit heavy handed... and results in unnecessary pushback. Calling it an service manager understates the scope of the project. Something like 'systemd manages and optimizes the life cycle of all processes from start up to shut down' might be a good one sentence blurb. I would would be happy to work on upstream wiki site to help with communication.... But I want to be careful not to overstep. Thanks _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
