digdilem

joined 1 year ago
[–] digdilem@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

A couple of self hosted options; you track, which includes a good knowledge base section. And mediawiki, along with many other wiki style foss projects.

[–] digdilem@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A correct and helpful answer. HA is phenomenal, although some report the learning curve is steep - it's totally worth it.

I use it with lots of different vendors and it consolidates and coordinates everything between everything else.

 

A random thought I had. I think the answer is no, but I'm not that certain. Convince me please.

[–] digdilem@feddit.uk -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What actually red hat wants?

All the control and all of the money.

Besides that, I suspect they have no clear vision. And if they do, they are absolutely terrible at communicating that.

[–] digdilem@feddit.uk -1 points 1 year ago

Agree on point of detail, but the "drama" is the reason for the fuss. Redhat's communication, especially to the community that helped build and support it, has always been patchy, but over the past few years it's been apalling. As others have pointed out, they've insulted a lot of us, specifically for not contributing upstream - so it's not unexpected for them to be called on it when someone does.

I think the EL sphere as a whole (including RHEL and all up and downstreams) is getting drastically weakened directly because of Redhat's poor decision making, and that's a shame for all of us.

[–] digdilem@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

As a UK citizen, I totally support this. The more that the average voter is disconvenienced because of proposed law changes like this and the (unenforcable) anti-porn laws, the more likely they are to actually pressure their MP or change how they vote.

[–] digdilem@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nah, it's fine. Boot times are considerably faster than sys.v in most cases, and it has a huge amount of functionality. Most people I work with have adopted it and much prefer it to the old init.d and sys.v systems.

People's problem with systemd (and there are fewer people strongly against it than before) seem to break down into two groups:

  1. They were happy with sys.v and didn't like change. Some were unhappy with how distros adopted it. (The debian wars in particular were really quite vicious)

  2. It does too much. systemd is modular, but even so does break one of the core linux tenets - "do one thing well". Despite the modularity, it's easy to see it as monolithic.

But regardless of feelings, systemd has achieved what it set out to do and is the defacto choice for the vast majority of distros, and they adopted it because it's better. Nobody really cares if a user tries to make a point by not using it any more, they're just isolating themselves. The battle was fought and systemd won it.

 

An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.