Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

[Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>]

Hi,

Nuno Magalhães <nunomagalhaes@eu.ipp.pt> writes:
> On 2014-11-16 11:40, Klistvud wrote:
>> 1. Reviving the existing init systems. Modernizing them, making them
>> into true, interchangeable drop-in replacements of each other, which do
>> the task assigned, and do it well. Each of them accomplishing at least
>> the common subset of tasks an init system is supposed to provide.
>> 
>> 2. Complementing them with existing or new tools (again, drop-in
>> interchangeable replacements of each other) which build on them and
>> provide the next layer. For example, the kernel autofs facility provides
>> very nice automounting and could be deployed to the majority of desktop
>> installs (instead of being just an optional package, as it is now), thus
>> making the various automount daemons of the various desktop
>> environments/file managers virtually superfluous. As a further example,
>> the former udev (prior to being merged into systemd) has already been
>> forked and could/will serve us well for years to come. And so on.
>
> +1 for being reasonable and making sense
>
> It's an approach that would keep a lot of people happy and, more
> importantly (at least to me), it gives the user choice instead of taking
> it away. At least this way each user could choose the loosely-coupled
> components s/he wanted.

Nobody is stopping anybody from improving sysvinit if they want to. So,
have fun hacking on it. ;)

Ansgar