On Mar 21, 2012 10:57 AM, "Svante Signell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 14:44 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > ]] Svante Signell
> > > Regarding who is expert or not, can the people who considers themselves
> > > as such (others shouldn't bother) do a _scientific_ comparison of the
> > > three alternatives with respect to important features. First step would
> > > be to write down which aspects are important, and continue from there.
> > > Also, practical experiments are needed to verify statements made.
> > I'd rather work on making systemd better and a better init system for
> > Debian than to satisfy some academic desire for a comparison of init
> > systems.
> How on earth would anybody be able to make a decision if there are no
> comparisons between the alternatives available? Throw a dice, rely on
> gut feelings, or what? Since everybody is so damned biased in opinions,
> I don't see any alternative to making a thorough investigation. This
> could be a useful GSoC task. If case the "experts" approve that somebody
> not senior or expert enough enough do the work. This would be much more
> intersting than writing a systemd-to-initscript converter.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
> Archive: firstname.lastname@example.org">http://email@example.com
FYI, some level of analysis between the three init systems has been done. See .
A bit of a disclaimer here, this comparison was done by a systemd developer. OTOH he makes quite a convincing argument for systemd.