On Sb, 19 iul 14, 08:00:20, The Wanderer wrote: > > I suspect it may be the principle which I've been turning over in my > mind lately, and which I think would be expressed as: > > "No functionality which anything not part of the init system might > legitimately want to depend on should be implemented (primarily) as part > of the init system." That's just another way to say "do one thing and do it well", which is a very good principle in my opinion. > Or, more concisely but less clearly, "Software not part of an init > system should be init-system-agnostic." (With obvious exceptions for > e.g. tools designed to manipulate the config files or init scripts for a > particular init system.) > > > E.g., the functionality provided by systemd-logind is something that > things outside of the init system might (and do) legitimately want to > depend on, so it should not be implemented as part of the init system. > > If systemd-logind is not part of the systemd init system, all > functionality which it depends on should be implemented outside of the > init system. > > Conversely, if systemd-logind is part of the systemd init system, the > functionality which outside programs want to depend on should not be > implemented as part of it. This is all very nice in theory and I don't disagree with you, it's just that the only viable alternative on Linux (upstart) has been falling behind for several reasons and eventually lost even the support of its creators, so we are left with only systemd. 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