From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QvyGT-0006pW-O9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:12:05 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B52F21C2ED; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:11:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from www01.badapple.net (www01.badapple.net [64.79.219.163]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F8921C0DD for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (173-8-169-73-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.8.169.73]) (Authenticated sender: ramin@badapple.net) by www01.badapple.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6711F9FAFBC9 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E541761.4050907@badapple.net> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:10:57 -0700 From: kashani User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] systemd References: <4E4C2CC4.6080604@xunil.at> <10047113.P4fhB6gBS3@nazgul> <4E540A9E.8020606@darkmetatron.de> <1512330.JWJZRg1h6R@nazgul> In-Reply-To: <1512330.JWJZRg1h6R@nazgul> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: e4af9e3d948fb0ae8569e5fd537cda21 On 8/23/2011 1:43 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > I can't fix it without running afoul of the Change Management process, > and today's emergency reboot didn't leave me any time to poke around > and determine the effect of removing hal. > > This is how life in corporate IT works.... > I hate Corp CM and it's one of the reasons I stay in startups. It's job is to slow normal change down so much so that every change becomes an emergency. However next time I have to deal with one I am shoving mathematical proof of "there is no rollback in systems" down there throats. http://www.iu.hio.no/~mark/papers/totalfield.pdf For those that aren't ginormous systems nerds this bit sums it up nicely. "There is a deeper issue with roll-back in partial systems. If a system is in contact with another system, e.g. receiving data, or if we have partitioned a system into loosely coupled pieces only one of which is being changed, then the other system becomes a part of the total system and we must write a hypothetical journal for the entire system in order to achieve a consistent rollback." kashani