On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:45:06 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between > systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in > systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how* > to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in > OpenRC/SysV), everything can spiral out of control really easily. And > it usually does (again, look at sshd; and that one is actully nicely > written, there are all kind of monsters out there abusing the power > that shell gives you). I'm having a wet dream right about now :-) init has been my pet peeve for years, starting with sysvinit. Why do I need 9 runlevels all fully configured, when me, my machines, the company's server, every Linux user in the company and every other use I have ever personally met, only use 1 of them? Let's not even discuss the amount of complexity that gets pushed into the init scripts themselves. Here's what I want: When the machine starts, I want services X, Y and Z to run. The software figures out what order they must start in and how the deps work. Clean, neat, easy. Maintenance mode is handled easily with two stages in startup: early_start and late_start. Maintenance mode is what you have between them. Again - nice, clean and simple. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
