[NTLUG:Discuss] Startup system types

[thomas at redhat.com]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/06/2010 09:32 AM, Chris Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 08:55 -0500, Wayne Walker wrote:...
>> So I'd say:
>>
>>   Lagging and old distros use Sys V; new, modern distros use upstart.
>>
>> I didn't check for any other distros, just the main 4.
>>
> 
> Or, one could equally say, distros interested in inserting instability
> into their distributions use upstart and those needing stability
> continue to use sysvinit.
> 
> Remember that ALL enterprise level commercial software available for
> Linux ASSUMES a sysvinit.  And remember that those guys don't like
> change.  Not saying that moving to upstart is a bad idea... just that
> you can't say updstart == "modern" and "no upstart" == "lagging and
> old".  With that said, upstart provides a way of handling the old
> sysvinit style scripts.... but still.... not sure if too much fringe
> case testing has been done.
> 
> So, there are REASONS for not switching.... change can mean risk.
> 
> If RHEL does make the switch (it's in the RHEL6 beta), it could apply
> pressure on the commercial vendors... but last time Red Hat made a
> radical shift, they LOST a lot of enterprise support (the RHAS 3 to RHAS
> 4 debacle), 

There has never been a Red Hat product called RHAS 3 or RHAS 4, so I'm
not sure what you're talking about here.  If you're going to pretend to
know what's going on at Red Hat, at least get our product names right,
please?

Also not sure what you're talking about with our having lost enterprise
support between RHEL 3 and RHEL 4.  If you look at any publicly
available data, you'll see that at the time of the RHEL 4 launch, we
increased our ISV and IHV portfolio by several thousand vendors.
Additionally, at that time we also increased our sales numbers by an
average of 22% year over year, and brought on tens of thousands of new
customers.

How does that equate to losing enterprise support, exactly?  I'm
apparently missing something.

> Red Hat is still dealing with this curse which is why they
> now offer super-extended support extension...
> 
> http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/extended_lifecycle_support/
> 
> You'll just have to trust me that it was created STRICTLY because of the
> RHAS 3 to RHAS 4 debacle.

Erm, really?  Pray tell, how is this the case, exactly?  Because where I
sit (inside of Red Hat), we're doing this because a ton of our customers
have legacy apps which Just Work(TM) and they don't want to make costly
changes in their IT environment.  We're a very customer-driven company,
and when enough customers ask us to do something, we respond.

Please, quit calling rumor and supposition fact.  You are seriously
uninformed in this case.  Cut your losses and move on.
- -- 
Thomas Cameron, RHCA, RHCDS, RHCVA, RHCX, CNE, MCSE, MCT
Managing Solutions Architect
512-241-0774 office / 512-585-5631 cell / 512-857-1345 fax
http://people.redhat.com/tcameron/
IRC: choirboy / AIM: rhelguy / Yahoo: rhce_guy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkyFTSsACgkQmzle50YHwaDWRgCeJAuEnA7JUwhPA+dXIs9gu2tS
HcAAnjeGN0vqtkULbVqPp6n/nvVWhwGH
=13yo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----