On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Andrew McGlashan <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/10/2014 7:46 PM, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > ISTM that if neither upstart nor systemd deliver the goods once > > finished, then a third new offering will arise. Parallel starting of > > services, and effective handling of events will be provided, one way or > > another, I expect. > > Perhaps. What makes a monolithic piece of software, like systemd the > answer? Traditional Linux/Unix is built around processes that do ONE > thing very well and without re-inventing the wheel. Sure we have > choices where multiple wheels are available, but usually those wheels > can act stand alone from competing wheels without locking in the car to > use a specific wheel ... so to speak.
You may be thinking of GNU/HURD. Linux has always had a monolithic kernel because it performs better. > > I'm quite prepared to blow raspberries at systemd too, but would need a > > real-world reason to do so. > > There is real world experience in other systems that can count as well. > The enormity of the systemd change should not be understated. There is > often a case for no change or more limited change when change is > actually necessary. There is also a place for other modular type > solutions to perceived problems of sysvinit as well as /fixing/ the > broken scripts that are to blame for pushing forward a replacement when > none is really warranted. But when developing software real-world experience in developing such software counts for a lot. I've been a DD for ~14 years. I know how Debian works. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
