On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
That's fine, but they still need to be developed responsibly and without the *problems* of 3.17 in recent times and other issues that get pushed out too quickly or without proper testing. It seems that the whole development is suspect to me.
The BTRFS developers seem responsible to me. If you use Oracle Linux or another distribution with a similar support policy then you won't get the 3.17 code that's under development now.
I've had RAM problems on a system with 4G of RAM running not much apart from Samba. I don't think that zfsonlinux has changed much since then.
Forget Linux, FreeBSD with ZFS ... that's quite different, more stable and with no RAM issues.
Not interested in BSD.
Systemd wasn't pushed in to Debian by Red Hat or anyone else. The Debian technical committee decided that systemd was the best option.
I've read that it is Red Hat employees moonlighting, but that's not first hand. Still I think that the decision to go systemd is going to do Debian a great deal of damage.
I haven't noticed any influence from Red Hat people, apart from the fact that when they make Fedora work better than Debian we want to copy them. I don't think that there will be any problems in Debian related to systemd that compare with having to deal with all the assholes.
After that decision there were a lot of threats and abuse by some people with obvious mental health problems. But such people don't matter when it comes to making a decision because they lack the intelligence or sanity to contribute to Debian in any way.
Too many people are aggrieved by the change to be just your *bad* type of people here. There is no doubt in my mind that systemd and how it has been handled by Debian is a complete disaster.
Fortunately I'm not interested in your opinion. I'll keep working on making systemd work better in Debian. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/