On Du, 02 mar 14, 18:09:46, ghaverla wrote:
>
> Systemd seems to have 2 proponents, people interested in fast booting,
> and people interested in servers. The intersection of those two groups
> is almost the NULL set. I think the answer to faster booting is
> hibernation, and people have been playing with that for many years as
> near as I can tell. To the people running servers who want faster
> booting, I would suggest that they not turn the things off.
Hibernation has it's own set of problems, especially as RAM sizes go up.
> It isn't change is evil, the saying is if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
But things *are* broken. Any computer with more than 1 (one) storage
device (not hot pluggable please) and 1 (one) wired network connection
(IPv4, not IPv6) with a static configuration and all other devices
connected at boot needs more than sysvinit + sysv-rc can handle sanely.
If you don't believe me just do
grep sleep /etc/init.d/*
And let's not forget about: remote shares, remote storage, encrypted
storage, local hot-plugged devices (not limited to storage), dynamic
network configuration (especially with IPv6), etc.
> Up until a month or so ago, I wouldn't know Lennart from a hole in the
> ground. He has a history with projects. Someone suggested he may not
> have started Pulse, I don't know. As far as I know, there are still
> problems with Pulse. I will not install Pulse on any system I set up,
> and if someone wants me to take care of their Linux box, Pulse gets
> removed. He may not have started Avahi, I don't know. I disable avahi
> daemons and executables as a matter of course, for much more than 1
> year. My beef with Avahi? For my LAN, I have 0 need. Why is it
> required? Chmod 640 and the problem is more or less gone. But I still
> have the useless downloads, which cuts into my bandwidth and possibly
> monthly allowance. I don't want to download stuff I don't want or
> need. I have no idea if "avahi" is finished?
Avoiding the need to do stuff like 'chmod 640' is exactly the reason we
need something more capable than sysvinit + sysv-rc. If I (as the
administrator of *my* computer) tell the system a specific service is
not to be started than it should stay like this. Why should I even have
to apply such hacks when all I need is 'service <servicename> stop'.
OpenRC could be very interesting, but unfortunately its integration with
Debian is lagging behind systemd and most Debian Developers (including
the sysv-rc maintainers) don't want to stay with sysv-rc longer than
absolutely necessary, which in this case is the release of Jessie (due
to the Debian commitment to support stable upgrades).
> I read the Free Software/FOSS/Libre news a lot. And I have more than a
> decade. I didn't see news that init scripts are broken.
Because it's not news? SCNR :)
> With Respect To boot times, I would think moving to a specialised shell
> that had no interactive capability (such as Gnu Readline) might be a
> place to start. That the "shell" often had to invoke subshells to do
> things, to me might be a reason to try Perl to boot a system. Just as
> a trial, Perl is big. But once you get it up and running, it doesn't
> need to invoke inferior processes for many tasks, and is capable of
> starting binaries with calculated arguments.
Execution speed is not the (only) issue, see above.
> Do you have a reference on sysvinit maintainer having problems? I
> don't anticipate having time for a couple of months, but maybe after.
A good place to start would be the PTS
http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sysvinit.html
but maybe you should consider helping out with OpenRC instead? Not
trying to tell you what to do, I just think OpenRC has a future (in
general as well as in Debian).
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature