Reiger said: To some extent. From what I read in the introduction blog post, systemd is inherently a desktop subsystem which does not play well with server type daemons.
It's heart and soul is to start up stuff only when needed, and shut things down aggressively when no longer required. This is perfectly sensible thing to do for a laptop on batteries, but becomes decidedly less fun with services which you might use only occasionally but when you *do* use them you need them to be running *right then*. It's no use having a SSH connection time out over a local network because the SSH daemon is not running, and it's little use either to do a lot of development work on your personal website then intend to do some testing only to find out that Apache 2 is napping -- if nothing is listening connections will fail. And your performance is gone, too.
So for servers or server-type work it looks not that good. It could be the greatest thing since sliced bread but right now it looks more like croissant sopped in French coffee: theoretically the croissant is delicious but I have my doubts about the “soppy” and the “French” parts (lots of milk and not much coffee).
That is true, and those are concerns for which systemd needs to tell a convincing story. Hard but not unsolvable.
With Fedora switching to systemd I would be very surprised if a plan didn't exist to handle these situations. Red Hat tend to be.. fairly dictatorial, when it comes to use cases they care about for RHEL in Fedora and let's face it, they are server people. I doubt they would have agreed to evaluate it for deployment without having considered these problems.
Generally Lennart is good at coming up with elegant solutions for hard problems so I am interested in seeing what his answer is going to be long term. It is clear from certain aspects of Systemd that he does care about administration at least.
That being said, Systemd is still early in development. For Natty I would be happy if we could at least demonstrate it running on Ubuntu.