Way !
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dba477 May 15, 2015 4:02 AM EDT |
Ubuntu and it's clones are switching to systemd. I cannot remind when it happened on Fedora (around 16 release) |
| 750 May 15, 2015 6:44 AM EDT |
Fedora has pretty much been the development distro for systemd. Frankly i it worries me how many eggs are in that distro basket, to the point that they seem able to dictate the direction of the Linux ecosystem. |
| penguinist May 15, 2015 7:37 AM EDT |
Meanwhile most of my sysadmin friends are holding on centos/rhel version 6 in order to avoid pulling systemd into play in professional environments. |
| dbaxps May 15, 2015 11:12 AM EDT |
How about RHEL 7.X (CentOS 7.X) Kernel 3.10.X ? |
| JaseP May 15, 2015 4:41 PM EDT |
RedHat/CentOS/Scientific Linux 6.Xs that are something like 6.4 [he] above,... I think (could be wrong about the version numbers),... all use systemd. There usually is not enough of an upgrade in kernel features to even remotely justify the major shift in admin work processes that switching to systemd represents. The 6.X series even run a 2.6 era kernel (How's that for taking a wait-n-see attitude?!?!). ... Sytemd is a classic example of the reason behind the adage: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." |
| penguinist May 15, 2015 7:01 PM EDT |
centos/rhel version 6 is not using systemd. It was, however, introduced into centos/rhel version 7. That is the reason that many of us are holding at version 6 until the dust settles. |
| BernardSwiss May 15, 2015 7:24 PM EDT |
One more data point against the argument that supposed SystemD in "winning over" one distro after another, because of systemd's alleged inherent merits. Once again, this announcement boils down to: "We are switching over to Systemd -- because we don't have a meaningful option to do otherwise. All we can realistically do is slow the process down some, to keep the switch-over from getting too messy." |
| dba477 May 16, 2015 4:13 AM EDT |
Why I told "Way !" in a bit more details ( the core issue of non-technical nature ) At systemd there is more active, large and versatile community of developers into which engineers of the SUSE and Red Hat companies enter. When using upstart the distribution kit becomes dependent on Canonical without which support of upstart remains without developers and will be doomed to stagnation.Participation in development of upstart requires signing of the agreement on transfer of property rights of the Canonical company. The Red Hat company not without cause decided on replacement of upstart by systemd. Debian project was already compelled to migrate for systemd. For realization of some opportunities of loading in Upstart it is required to use fragments of shell-scripts that does initialization process less reliable and more labor-consuming for debugging. |
| kikinovak May 16, 2015 8:40 AM EDT |
Everybody let's just listen to Justin Bieber and Britney Spears, since they have the better fan support, and Charles Mingus isn't playing any more gigs. |
| dba477 May 16, 2015 9:39 AM EDT |
Once again about pros/cons of Systemd and Upstart https://bderzhavets.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/once-again-abou... |
| 750 May 16, 2015 9:51 AM EDT |
Funny how OpenRC etc are left out of the equation... |
| JaseP May 16, 2015 8:13 PM EDT |
Oops,... Well, I was wrong about the RHEL inclusion of systemd,... It's RHEL 7.X and above,... But not the kernel version for the RHEL v6 series (kernel 2.6.32, with some back-ports). |
| dba477 May 17, 2015 2:46 AM EDT |
In particular "namespaces" support was ported RHEL 6.5 Kernel 2.6.32 |
| dba477 May 17, 2015 2:49 AM EDT |
Regarding RHEL 7.0. It was built based on Fedora 19 basis. Systemd was suspended during F15 test phase and merged F16 release. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!