Am Dienstag, den 06.07.2010, 20:39 +0100 schrieb Ken Moffat: > On 6 July 2010 18:50, Sebastian Plotz <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace > > Sysvinit with Upstart ... > > > > Here are some points for discussion: > > > > 1. The bootscripts can still be used (like Ubuntu did). > > 2. The LFS user will learn something about old techniques (runlevels) and > > new techniques (event based booting) at the same time. > > 3. Upstart is more modern than Sysvinit (and it is under active > > development). > > 4. Some distributions already use upstart (Ubuntu, Fedora) or will use it > > in future (openSUSE, Debian). > > > > What are you thinking about that? > > > Changing things *for the sake of changing them* when we don't have to > just causes work. I don't see any concrete advantages listed (either for > upstart, or for the alternatives listed by others). > > From memory, I think the reason ubuntu moved from sysvinit was to > speed up their boot process. Last time I used ubuntu (admittedly a long > time ago), my impression was that their boot process was excessively > complex, and in some ways I would actually describe it as "wrong" (like > debian, run a graphical login on all runlevels for desktops). I also recall > that they switched to dash, which I regard as an *inadequate* shell, to > improve their boot times. > > Do I think the LFS/BLFS desktop boot could be quicker ? Of course. > In my case, I get a delay of several seconds while ntp starts up. But > so far, I've managed to live with that and I know that it *doesn't* need > a completely revised method of booting to address it. > > I might be misjudging you, but so far your post comes across as "ooh, > upstart is newer and shinier". ISTR those were the motivations behind > kde4 - and for those of us who build from source on bare metal, that > turned into a disaster (total bloat). I suggest that you identify *what* > you think can be done better during the boot process, then go off and > try different method(s) - if any of them provides a significant benefit, > come back and explain why you think the change is worthwhile - if the > aim is to speed up the boot, timings will be useful. > > In my case, the slowest part of booting my desktop machines is > waiting for the bios to present me with the grub boot screen, then > the ntp delay I mentioned. From memory, I think that saving 5 > seconds in the whole process is actually neither here nor there, > but people have different views. > > ĸen > -- > After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!"
Yes of course, saving boot time is an important point of Upstart. But I think that the system actually won't boot faster if we're using the old bootscripts (I don't know any timings). My idea was, that we're using the scripts for an unspecified time. After that, they may be replaced with event based jobs. Another point is, that the event based jobs are shorter than the scripts. So I think that they are easier to maintain. --> please correct me, if I'm wrong -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
