Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports
On 07/21/2013 06:12 PM, Игорь Пашев wrote:
2013/7/22 Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net>:
We would be effectively "locked in".
We are locked in sysvinit.
Agreed, to an extent we are. And you can see how hard it's being to
migrate away from that, even once alternatives have been implemented.
I'm saying that it looks to me as if the lock-in to systemd would be
even stronger than the lock-in to sysvinit, and might well extend to the
point of even making it harder to implement another new alternative in
the first place.
If someone implementing a new alternative wanted to retain the other
tools with which systemd integrates, that person would have to match
their interfaces, which might limit the functionality the new
alternative could be able to provide - much as having to match the
sysvinit interfaces would seem to limit the functionality systemd can
provide.
If someone implementing a new alternative didn't want to retain those
tools, then since those tools would have by then come to replace all the
non-integrated tools which now perform (lesser versions of?) the same
roles, that person would have to implement alternatives to all of them
as well - a potentially much bigger job than just implementing a new
init system.
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
- LiveJournal user antonia_tiger
Reply to: