Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
> more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to
> see a use case where it is not better.
With all due respect, this might be utter bullshit, but is at least
[citation needed]. I have yet to see a failing pid 1 (be that sysv,
upstart or systemd). Acquiring data on failure modes of any of those
systems appears like a difficult task and d-devel might not be the best
place to discuss that.
> But regardless, we don???t need more than one init system. We just need a
> good one. This is completely unrelated to GNOME. The bunch of idiots who
> try to pin it down on GNOME, Fedora or the Illuminati look like just
> another group of conspiracy theories lunatics.
The problem is not that people disagree on that a good init system is
needed, but about what good comprises. Some people believe that a good
init system should run on all supported architectures including
kfreebsd-*. By this particular metric sysv init still outperforms
systemd. In fact for every combination of init systems you will find a
metric where one outperforms the other.
And this is where choice makes sense IF the benefits outweigh its costs.
Unfortunately that if is a very tough question.
Let me therefore direct a question to those in favour of a switchable
/bin/sh:
What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as
opposed to other viable mechanisms to select a shell such as the shebang
of your scripts)
Answers I've seen so far:
* Backwards compatibility with systems that still use bashisms.
* Users who want to choose /bin/sh to satisfy some belief in
superiority.
Summaries or references to previous discussion appreciated.
Helmut
Reply to: