Comment Re:Are you sure? (Score 1) 863
Eh, I'm looking forward to Systemd because it will be an improvement over init.d scripts. Especially when you have multiple services that depend on other services being up and running.
In today's world, you have to write some other non-standard script or use some other non-standard hack of the original init scripts to make sure that X starts before Y and that Z also gets notified that X restarted. That's a major pain point for anyone who doesn't depend solely on monolithic apps. Such as a mail server... (clamd, amavisd, postfix, dovecot, sogod all intertwined).
That being stated - there's no way I will roll out RHEL 7 or CentOS 7 until the 7.1 or 7.2 release (i.e. sometime in late 2015). I'm not convinced yet that systemd is fully baked yet. I have the same stance on btrfs, which is still a technology preview.
And binary logs are not a huge deal when it will make it far easier to find an event without having to look at a dozen different log files, each with a slightly different naming scheme or location. While the current log viewing tools are rudimentary, I expect that we'll see improved tools as people scratch the itches. The problem with binary logs is that people have really only dealt with Window's proprietary implementation (which is has been sucky for a decade-plus). There's no way to copy the log files off to a second server (if you can get the drives mounted) and the built-in log viewing tool is just horrible.
In today's world, you have to write some other non-standard script or use some other non-standard hack of the original init scripts to make sure that X starts before Y and that Z also gets notified that X restarted. That's a major pain point for anyone who doesn't depend solely on monolithic apps. Such as a mail server... (clamd, amavisd, postfix, dovecot, sogod all intertwined).
That being stated - there's no way I will roll out RHEL 7 or CentOS 7 until the 7.1 or 7.2 release (i.e. sometime in late 2015). I'm not convinced yet that systemd is fully baked yet. I have the same stance on btrfs, which is still a technology preview.
And binary logs are not a huge deal when it will make it far easier to find an event without having to look at a dozen different log files, each with a slightly different naming scheme or location. While the current log viewing tools are rudimentary, I expect that we'll see improved tools as people scratch the itches. The problem with binary logs is that people have really only dealt with Window's proprietary implementation (which is has been sucky for a decade-plus). There's no way to copy the log files off to a second server (if you can get the drives mounted) and the built-in log viewing tool is just horrible.