Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick: >> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of >> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them > > Here's one part > > A good design would make the init process which is always running and > everyone must run. > > 1./ Be a small simple binary
The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's /sbin/init, but not by much). > 2./ Have no dependencies That is pure BS. If something has no dependencies, it has to do everything in the binary itself. You either end up with no features, or potential for tons of bugs. Having NO dependencies also means you have to bypass the C library and implement everything from scratch - that is the worst idea ever. > 3./ Be easy to follow, fix and lockdown, best fit being interpreted > languages. So, init should be a small binary in an interpreted language? Am I the only one who notices you are contradicting yourself. > 4./ be as fast as possible > > systemd meets 4. Sysvinit meets 1-3 well but OpenBSDs init meets 1-3 > better Where are your AUR packages that provide OpenBSD's init? I haven't seen them.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
