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

Re: existing alternatives



Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
Miles Fidelman:
Seriously, nowhere, in all the discussions of systemd, have I seen a
> significant number of people - other than those directly or
> indirectly associated with systemd - stand up and say "we really,
> really, need a new init system," [...]
>
> Admittedly, my focus is server-side only, and I don't follow every
> software projects in the world, and I could be wrong.

You are, wildly.

People have been standing up and saying that we need a new init system for a decade and a half. Indeed, not only have they been standing up and saying it, they have been sitting down, rolling up their sleeves, and making new init systems. These include Felix von Leitner (author of minit), Joachim Nilsson (author of finit), John Fremlin (author of jinit), Nico Schottelius (author of cinit), the whole Init-NG group (http://initng.org/trac/wiki/Developers), Gerrit Pape (author of runit), and that bloke who wrote nosh. Some of those new init systems have been in the Debian package repository for years. Extra namechecks go to Paul Jarc, who went and found out how practical it is to run a service manager (svscan from daemontools) as process #1, Richard Gooch (simpleinit), and of course Laurent Bercot. Then there are all the people that they talked this over with in many mailing lists and newsgroups over the years.

And that's just the Linux and (sometimes) BSD worlds. The commercial Unices have had things like AIX's SRC, Solaris' SAC and SMF, and MacOS's launchd.

The ideas that this hasn't been an itch for long, or that systemd/upstart are the only ones to scratch it, are total nonsense.


I'm not denying that people have gone out and built multiple new init systems. Nor that for some user communities (e.g., desktop/laptop - where fast boot is important), and maybe some developer communities (those trying to use kernel features not supported by classic init systems), new and improved init is important.

I'm just saying that, from my perspective - server-side focus, user/sys admin, where most of what we run are mail, web, database, list servers, blogs, dns, time, etc. (you know, classic organizational server infrastructure) - I have not seen a lot of call (any, actually) for new init systems. Lots of focus on virtualization, containers, file systems, high availability, cloud stacks -- but new init systems, not so much. Maybe a bit of chatter about better configuration and control of init - for MORE control of startup sequencing (vs. parallelization) - but that's about it.

And, I'll repeat my assertion that most of the discussion about to systemd or not, particularly in the Debian community, does not seem to include all that many server-side users, or upstream developers.

Miles Fidelman



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra


Reply to: