Re: On init in Debian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Saturday 17 March 2012 10:23 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I'd like people to think twice before opt-in for systemd. I just
> taked with a friend working for redhat, and he told me how much he
> hates it. He told me that if *anything* goes wrong in the boot
> process, then basically, you're stuck, because the next thing will
> be waiting forever. That's basically truth with any event based
> init, and maybe we're just fine with just dependency booting.
I think the same. Apart from the, "its cool. it is an event based
framework", I don't see much value. and anybody who cares about
events, could also monitor and act with udev's help.
Today, on my typical laptop, boot is not the most important task. It
is better to have something well working, fixable (being mere shell
scripts and that's what your friend is also pointing). sysvinit serves
this purpose well.
imo it would be better to have an init system that could serve all the
platforms (more or less) that we care about.
- --
Given the large number of mailing lists I follow, I request you to CC me
in replies for quicker response
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=JEUD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: