Re: Init system deba{te|cle}
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 21:08:29 +0000
Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
> Misrepresenting what systemd is and the reasons for its existence
> doesn't make sense:
>
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
>
> OS X and Solaris switched to launchd and smf respectively in 2005 and,
> to borrow an expression from Asterix and Obelix, "the sky didn't fall
> on their heads." Modern nix systems need a more sophisticated
> "/sbin/init" and associated executables and they need (and have needed
> for a long time) something more reliable and maintainable than a bunch
> of dash/bash scripts to bring the system up.
I've never seen (nor intend to) launchd, but I'm familiar with smf.
And while in Solaris "the sky didn't fall on their heads" indeed, smf
uses ksh scripts for actual launch, check and re-start services like no
tomorrow. And Solaris's svc.startd is actually started by /sbin/init.
Whenever the result is more reliable ('forgetting' to start sshd on a
failed local non-root filesystem mount is one of 'features' of new
Solaris), or maintainable (yes, I always wanted to describe service
dependencies in xml) is subjective, of course.
And smf doesn't provide 'one true API' for service launch nor requires
services to be written in a specific way.
> Linux is playing catch-up
> in this field and I'm glad that upstart and systemd are dragging it
> out of the dark ages, even if it's kicking and screaming irrationally.
Linux is way ahead of AIX, FreeBSD and HP-UX in this regard even if
using good ol' sysvinit. So, Lennart fixed what wasn't broken in the
first place.
Reco
Reply to: