On systemd I do "systemctl start foo" and I get info that the service was actually started and runs, or that the service did not started. With the init scripts I don't have any response and I need to use ps or netstat to figure out whether or not the service actually runs. That is because systemd is using cgroups to track the started service, but sysvinit have no service management at all.

If you want info and logs why the service didn't started, use "systemctl status foo", or use the journal with "journalctl -n 20" or filter "journalctl _SYSTEMD_UNIT=foo". That's no different from the usual "dmegs|grep foo".

Your logging issues are too unspecific and I have no idea what you actually talking about. On Fedora 20 I have all the usual logging files in /var/log. Even your missed /var/log/messages is there.

No, it will not. It just shows a yellow triangle. If you want a security policy that does what you describe, then Chrome should not display that web site at all.

No, it does not. The Window Manager have dependency on systemd, not the other way around. If the Gnome developers deciding that they need systemd, it's not systemd fault. You are free to open a bug ticket, but in the end it's the decision of the Gnome developers to use a particular technology.

That's why people want systemd. If I look at sysvinit scripts, there are a ton of magic stuff going on that I don't know, and maybe nobody knows. On Ubuntu 12.04 the sysvinit script for Apache is over 7000 bytes long, and it includes bad stuff like "# wait until really stopped" with a loop of kill and sleep. The ClamAV init script is even bigger, over 9000 byes long. Is there any maintainer who really knows what it does?

All they did compare was one memory access vs. another memory access, and showed that Strings are inefficient compared to a byte array. Because the first code will concatenate Strings in memory, the second code will concatenate byte array data in memory, and then both are written to disk. The disk-access test should have been:

    for (int i=0; i numIter; i++) {
                    writer.write(addString);
                    writer.flush();
                    writer.close();
    }

I have the impression that it's their core business. My point was that Red Hat is publicly traded and thus they are much more transparent than private businesses and the value of their stock reflects the performance.

That is your opinion. I wrote reasons why I think it is proven and obviously a lot of Linux distributors think that, too. Lets assume you are correct and it is unproven and will break in RHEL 7 and a lot, if not all, customers will get very angry with Red Hat and switch to sysvinit or stick to 6 or switch to a different distribution or to Windows. Do you think Red Hat will live with that risk? So, why would Red Hat use systemd in their enterprise distribution if they not think it is ready? Red Hat, Inc. is even a publicly traded company and since May 2014 their stock continues to grow in value, i.e. there is no sign that customers are running away from RHEL 7.

You are free to use RHEL 6 or any other distribution that don't use systemd if you think it is unproven. You can even deinstall systemd on RHEL 7 and continue with sysvinit. PS: nice no true Scotsman fallacy.

Are you joking right? You are saying that it is in production use for 11 months, and it had about 2 years of testing in Fedora, and that is "unproven"?

What are you talking about? In the core systemd have only 5 daemons: systemd, journald, networkd, logind and user session, and it depends only on dbus, cgroups, autofs and kdbus. That is very minimalistic. The rest are optional daemons and tools that make your life easier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

I'm still compelled to ask the same question, so what? Biological systems had 3.5 billion years to evolve. That is a lot of time for evolution and surviving of the fittest. If you look at biological organisms, they are in fact based on simplicity. Our mammalian brain is based on the amphibian and the fish brain. That is because we evolved from fish ancestors and then from amphibian ancestors. That is one example of from simple to complex. In the cell we have DNA->RNA->Proteins. That is also from simple to complex, because the first life had only proteins, then it got RNA for genetic information and enzyme in one, then it got DNA only for genetic information. Or eukaryotes evolved after prokaryotic cells, and eukaryotes fussed with chloroplast and mitochondrion cells to form our modern animal/plant cells. Also, single celled life lived long before multicellular life evolved, etc. etc. You can find simple to complex everywhere in biology.

1. my impression is that systemd is just more transparent about it, because syslog just drops the corrupted log entries silently.
2. that is just wrong. journald just rotates the log files, nothing is lost. journald shows all partials log files together as one journal:

http://www.freedesktop.org/sof...

That is nice, but so what? A star is more complex than the gas cloud it originated from, a galaxy is more complex than the cloud of stars it originated from. In nature complexity always comes from simplicity.

So, your issue with systemd is that it works just like syslog, only that systemd makes the issue more transparent by showing corrupted logs instead of just silently drop them like syslog?

"Transferring log messages via rsyslog or snmp traps is CURRENTLY the only resolve here and it is one I find to be annoying."

Just like you would without systemd. I don't see why you think then it is a bug of systemd. I think you should open a feature request.

Your understanding is wrong. systemd init have only a few components, and everything else is in independent daemons/tools. It follows exactly the Linux "Philosophy".