[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Arguments for tech-ctte (Was: Proposal: let’s have a GR about the init system)

Additional arguments in favor of sysvinit:

* systemd and upstart lead to vendor lock-in; it will be complicated
later to return back or change to third option, as well to change from
first to second option

* I don't have a feeling that configuration can be very simpler than
shell scripts; there are things such as 'events' and such things have
to be properly defined)

* If OpenRC's development continues in good direction, Debian could
switch to OpenRC

* If our shell scripts are a mess, then we should clean up the mess,
not trying to escape it by changing whole init system; more precisely,
we should correct mistakes we made in past, such as not enough

* existing software (sysvinit+initscripts) can be enhanced:

(1) add new features to sysvinit; e.g. start-stop-daemon could be
extended, to return only when service is ready, or if timeout exceeds
to return with error status (2) add new software in addition to sysvinit
(3) make init scripts more correct (abstraction)
(4) extend configurability (more options in /etc/default/*)

(3) makes (4) easily possible

If sysvinit is in accord with UNIX philosophy, and as they say it is,
than I don't see why (1) and (2) would not be possible, too, and with
not to much effort. 

* What is alleged to be disadvantages of sysvinit (lack of features),
is not really to blame sysvinit, because it does one thing and do it
right. Other features could be implemented as additional software. On
the other hand, what actually was done was writing new software that
make old software obsolete and that do *many* things, which is not in
accord with UNIX philosophy. 

* More complex software has more bugs, old software is cleaned out of
original bugs, and new software is not. 

* Software that is not well commented is hard to understand and find

For more details:

[🔎] 20131108134841.715634cc@eunet.rs">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20131108134841.715634cc@eunet.rs
[🔎] 20131105234316.4407f99b@eunet.rs">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20131105234316.4407f99b@eunet.rs
[🔎] 20131106135535.7d0919bb@eunet.rs">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20131106135535.7d0919bb@eunet.rs

Reply to: