On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Leonid Isaev <lis...@umail.iu.edu> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:27:33 +0200 > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> 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 >> > >> > 2./ Have no dependencies >> > >> > 3./ Be easy to follow, fix and lockdown, best fit being interpreted >> > languages. >> > >> > 4./ be as fast as possible >> > >> > systemd meets 4. Sysvinit meets 1-3 well but OpenBSDs init meets 1-3 >> > better >> >> I agree in general, but systemd doesn't meet #4; we are supposed to >> believe that's the case, but does it really? >> > > So... on my c2d (1.8ghz) machine a reboot with initscripts takes about 40s. > With systemd it will either take (1) < 40s (2) > 40s. But probably the > deviation will not exceed ~5s. > > Given that... why should I care about speed at all? Again your problem with > 300 MHz kernel timer may be real, but is it relevant when talking about an > init system? Does it overweigh such pros as deprecation of ck and pm-utils, or > ability to lock a user in a cgroup?
I am merely replying to what Kevin said. Using Kevin's list systemd has in reality no advantage. Of course you can add items to that list, such as the ones you mentioned. I care nothing about those items you mentioned, while I care about speed. Different people have different opinions, but having an *official* list of advantages/disadvantages can only help. specially if/when shit hits the fan, and tons of users experience fundamental problems with systemd (which is a real possibility); they will this is an imposition without a good reason. -- Felipe Contreras
