| |||||||||||||
Poettering: The Biggest MythsPoettering: The Biggest MythsPosted Jan 28, 2013 10:58 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Poettering: The Biggest Myths by pbonzini Parent article: Poettering: The Biggest Myths
so you want to encourage people to not upgrade to RHEL7??!?!
just being techincally better (assuming systemd is), isn't enough to drive people to switch to something different.
If it was there wouldn't be nearly as many peole using Windows :-)
but even in the *nix space, look at syslog. For many years syslog-ng was out there and nobody disputed that it was a better syslog daemon than what everyone was using, but for the majority of the people plain syslog wasn't 'broken' enough for them to be willing to take on the load of learning a completely different config syntax.
rsyslog displaced sysklog very rapidly in part because it didn't force people who didn't want to use the new features to learn new ways of doing the same thing (and those wanting to do something different were willing to learn how)
I know people keep repeating how systemd doesn't force you to change, you can still use init scripts, but that's not how it's being used and setup in the distros using it so far.
(Log in to post comments)
Poettering: The Biggest Myths Posted Jan 28, 2013 11:15 UTC (Mon) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
> so you want to encourage people to not upgrade to RHEL7??!?!
Absolutely not, just pointing out the obvious: it's not like RHEL7's release will represent a flag day for everyone using RHEL. Not for systemd, not for anything else.
Of course the RHEL7 documentation will cover systemd, but even the training material covering systemd for RHCSA and RHCE courses will likely come out a few months later (at least that was the case for RHEL6).
> I know people keep repeating how systemd doesn't force you to change, you can still use init scripts, but that's not how it's being used and setup in the distros using it so far.
I agree, and that's why a "RHEL7 without systemd" fork just cannot exist.
Poettering: The Biggest Myths Posted Jan 28, 2013 17:56 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
I looked at syslog-ng a couple of times, and while it's better, it's not that MUCH better. There are no "killer features" for me there, so I just don't bother.
Poettering: The Biggest Myths Posted Jan 28, 2013 21:27 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
> There are no "killer features" for me there, so I just don't bother.
That is my exact point.
'killer features' for me
with syslog-ng there were a LOT of features that were absolutly killer for people who needed them, but it turns out that the vast majority of people were happy with what they had, and so the pain of having to change how everything currently worked in order to get new features that they didn't care about was enough to prevent just about any distro from switching to syslog-ng as the default syslog
along comes rsyslog, and while it's config files have some 'new, strange' stuff up at the beginning, the main part of the config files looks just like classic syslog, and it's maintained. Within a year, just about every distro switched to using rsyslog as the default, and it didn't bother anyone because their configs either 'just worked' (if they were included), or were dead trivial to adapt.
Now, several years later, there is a significant uptick in the number of people doing things with rsyslog that could never have been done with sysklog (but that could have been done with syslog-ng), in part because the transition was evolutionary, with full support (not just in theory, but in practice by the distros) for using the old style configs.
|
|||||||||||||