Re: A few observations about systemd
]] Robert Millan
| 2011/7/18 Tollef Fog Heen <email@example.com>:
| > | The main issue I have with dropping kFreeBSD & HURD would be (apart from
| > | losing two platforms I use - even if for fun only; I don't want to use a
| > | distribution that doesn't allow me to have as much fun as I do now) that
| > | it leads down the path of dropping whatever a vocal upstream decides to
| > | don't care about.
| > Just for the record: Hurd's no longer in unstable and hasn't been for a
| > while.
| I'm confused... I just checked and Hurd is in unstable. Did you mean
| something else?
No, I merely misread the rmadison output.
| > I'm not arguing for dropping kfreebsd, and I would like some of the
| > kFreeBSD porters to speak up with suggestions on how to handle the
| > situation best for them. After all, it's they who have to live with
| > whatever solution we end up with.
| I missed the rest of the discussion, but if the proposal is to replace
| sysvinit with systemd, that wouldn't force removal of any non-Linux
| port. It'd be an annoying inconvenient though, as it'd just make it
| diverge a bit more than it already does.
(please read a bit more of the thread, I'd really like your input, but
your answer seems a bit incomplete in the context of the full thread.)
Where «a bit more» means that it'll run completely separate scripts for
booting and starting daemons. This also means people won't be testing
those scripts which will undoubtedly lead to bugs. I really don't think
that's a good way forward.
| Have you considered InitNG instead? It seems to have similar goals as
| upstart/systemd without sacrificing portability:
No. Part of the reason why I think systemd is interesting is because
some/all/lots of the other distros are moving in the same direction and
there's not really much to win in terms of having different init systems
and init scripts than the others.
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are