| 1 |
On 12/24/2012 10:56 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Even back when hard disks are a mote in the eyes of today's mammoths, |
| 4 |
> you *can* make /usr part of /, there's no stopping you. Sure, other |
| 5 |
> SysAdmins may scoff and/or question your sanity, but the choice is |
| 6 |
> yours. YOU know what's best for your precious servers, YOU made the call. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> But with the latest udev, Lennart et al saw it fit to yank that choice |
| 9 |
> out of the hands of SysAdmins, while at the same time trying to enforce |
| 10 |
> a stupidly overbloated init replacement. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I may be really out of the loop or old-fashioned, but what went wrong |
| 13 |
with the old SysV init scheme? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
SysV inhereited the init scheme practically in toto from what was |
| 16 |
created for the intermediate SysIV version that was intermal to Bell |
| 17 |
Labs. SysIV got used for a few projects, and it was a major improvement |
| 18 |
over the SysIII scheme. Those developing the SysIV/SysV init scheme |
| 19 |
tried to anticipate future extensions (especially dependency problems) |
| 20 |
even to the point of ashing Murry Hill to make chenges to the shell to |
| 21 |
make some "magic" easier. [Specifically the use of shell exec for |
| 22 |
input/output file descriptor changes.] |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
[Disclaimer: I was working a Holmdel with a SystemIV based project as a |
| 25 |
contractor and was involved in some of this work.] |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
From what has been happening with the systemd stuff, I do not see what |
| 28 |
advantages it really offers over the SysV scheme and its successors like |
| 29 |
OpenRC. Someone enlighten me please? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
G.Wolfe Woodbury |
| 33 |
redwolfe@×××××.com |
Archives