I'm in the process of migrating a couple of AIX 5.3 systems over to AIX 7 and is almost impressed of how little has changed between those. So by all means, if your vendors suggest that you switch to AIX I think you should do it. Would love to get my hands on some POWER8 hardware though.
- More than half of my companies preferred vendor applications will not run on systemd (some of which will never support it)
Then those apps will effectively not support GNU/Linux going forward since more or less everyone is jumping on the Systemd bandwagon.
- Majority of in-house scripts need to be rewritten
I don't know about how you write scripts, but I find it amazing that a majority of them has to be rewritten. What are you guys doing really? But if this really is such a problem all I can say is that you should really look into making abstraction layers, because whatever you're doing is so low-level it's going to break no matter what changes.
The growing list of complaints are raising flags in my company so much so that we are looking at outright dumping Redhat and we have been a dedicated Redhat Enterprise customer since 1997. RHEL7 has ZERO TCO for everyone I've spoken with... Retraining, retooling, reconfiguring and reorganizing are absurd.
Are there any statistics on how often users actually install Debian from a CD? My guess would be that installing it from a USB stick is getting more and more common.
We have quite a lot of GNU/Linux workstations where I am. I would say most, at least 95+ % of all users, from newcomers to experts, run GNOME 3. I occasionally find someone using Xfce or even Fvwm, but most people seam to be just fine with GNOME.
OK, so you have to learn Systemd. But what is it that you can't do anymore? If you want ext4 then use ext4. If you want MySQL then use MySQL. If you want the old network interface names then use them, it's just a kernel parameter you pass with grub. And everything is now in/usr? Big deal. If you want GNOME 2 then sorry, things changes; we don't have GNOME 1 anymore either. Things change. New features come, old features go. That's how it is. Learn to live with it!
But when the systemd developers started trying to embrace, extend and extinguish other things like syslog, core dumps, etc. then systemd jumped the shark.
But why not? It's all essential system software that can benefit from being developed under the same roof.
I'm not talking about the kernel, I'm talking about the operating system often referred to as GNU/Linux. Systemd has nothing to do with the kernel, except that it uses its functionality.
That's not the complaint. The complaint is that the process at PID 1 should be simple. You people running around screaming about a bunch of different processes are only compounding the proof that you do not understand Unix. It's not a problem to have many processes.
We all stopped using UNIX long ago, it's GNU/Linux now and it's only somewhat inspired by UNIX. What the UNIX people did 30 years ago is interesting from a historical perspective, but is not in any way the only right way to do things. I say did because that's now even how modern unices work. Solaris has for example been running on SMF since 2005 and they are doing just fine.
I use both, actually I use a couple of others as well. I often find interesting edge cases and bugs just by running my code through as many compilers as possible.
They stopped using gcc for various reasons, the project was stagnant, ridden by core developers that could not agree on a road map, it forked a few times I believe and it was always not only buggy but years behind modern C++ standards. Not to mention gcc is slow and the code it produces was not really fast or small in the recent years. No idea how it is faring right now.
You should really take a look at gcc 4.9 because your viewpoint is seriously out of date.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in the process of migrating a couple of AIX 5.3 systems over to AIX 7 and is almost impressed of how little has changed between those. So by all means, if your vendors suggest that you switch to AIX I think you should do it. Would love to get my hands on some POWER8 hardware though.
- More than half of my companies preferred vendor applications will not run on systemd (some of which will never support it)
Then those apps will effectively not support GNU/Linux going forward since more or less everyone is jumping on the Systemd bandwagon.
- Majority of in-house scripts need to be rewritten
I don't know about how you write scripts, but I find it amazing that a majority of them has to be rewritten. What are you guys doing really? But if this really is such a problem all I can say is that you should really look into making abstraction layers, because whatever you're doing is so low-level it's going to break no matter what changes.
The growing list of complaints are raising flags in my company so much so that we are looking at outright dumping Redhat and we have been a dedicated Redhat Enterprise customer since 1997. RHEL7 has ZERO TCO for everyone I've spoken with... Retraining, retooling, reconfiguring and reorganizing are absurd.
So, what alternative are you looking at?
Not sure what you mean, Systemd is not available on Windows.
Are there any statistics on how often users actually install Debian from a CD? My guess would be that installing it from a USB stick is getting more and more common.
We have quite a lot of GNU/Linux workstations where I am. I would say most, at least 95+ % of all users, from newcomers to experts, run GNOME 3. I occasionally find someone using Xfce or even Fvwm, but most people seam to be just fine with GNOME.
OK, so you have to learn Systemd. But what is it that you can't do anymore? If you want ext4 then use ext4. If you want MySQL then use MySQL. If you want the old network interface names then use them, it's just a kernel parameter you pass with grub. And everything is now in /usr? Big deal. If you want GNOME 2 then sorry, things changes; we don't have GNOME 1 anymore either. Things change. New features come, old features go. That's how it is. Learn to live with it!
But when the systemd developers started trying to embrace, extend and extinguish other things like syslog, core dumps, etc. then systemd jumped the shark.
But why not? It's all essential system software that can benefit from being developed under the same roof.
Or switch to a pass phrase, which can be of any length.
The pass code is limited to four numbers, but you can switch it to a longer pass phrase which may include any number of alphanumerical characters.
No.
I know some people who actually used to call it GNU/OpenSolaris. In the end I think it's up to each community respectively to decide what to call it.
Mac OS X is moving away from the GNU userland, using either outdated versions or switching to equivalent BSD tools.
That's why you can continue to use syslog if that's what you want.
Some of us like the new features.
I'm not talking about the kernel, I'm talking about the operating system often referred to as GNU/Linux. Systemd has nothing to do with the kernel, except that it uses its functionality.
You don't have to. If you really want your old way then just have journald pass everything along to syslog and it's back to normal.
That's not the complaint. The complaint is that the process at PID 1 should be simple. You people running around screaming about a bunch of different processes are only compounding the proof that you do not understand Unix. It's not a problem to have many processes.
We all stopped using UNIX long ago, it's GNU/Linux now and it's only somewhat inspired by UNIX. What the UNIX people did 30 years ago is interesting from a historical perspective, but is not in any way the only right way to do things. I say did because that's now even how modern unices work. Solaris has for example been running on SMF since 2005 and they are doing just fine.
Are you suggesting that Systemd is prone to crash?
Not really. His argument lost some credibility when he compared a system level utility to a graphical application.
What's the difference? Both are complex systems.
I use both, actually I use a couple of others as well. I often find interesting edge cases and bugs just by running my code through as many compilers as possible.
I don't see anything about demand there.
Unfortunately Systemd is not available on Minix so that's a downgrade.
They stopped using gcc for various reasons, the project was stagnant, ridden by core developers that could not agree on a road map, it forked a few times I believe and it was always not only buggy but years behind modern C++ standards. Not to mention gcc is slow and the code it produces was not really fast or small in the recent years.
No idea how it is faring right now.
You should really take a look at gcc 4.9 because your viewpoint is seriously out of date.
According to TFS Quickflix apparently wants to.
Because someone else will do cool things with it that you wouldn't.
It's an argument for why Apple should do it, not that Apple must do it.