| 1 |
Am 16.02.2014 17:50, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> 1. sysvinit (status quo) |
| 7 |
>>> 2. systemd |
| 8 |
>>> 3. upstart |
| 9 |
>>> 4. openrc (experimental) |
| 10 |
>>> 5. One system on Linux, something else on non-linux |
| 11 |
>>> 6. multiple |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> It should also be noted that no one in the TC voted OpenRC above |
| 14 |
>>> systemd AND upstart, and that while a couple voted systemd below |
| 15 |
>>> everything else, it can be argued that it was a tactical vote. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> Regards. |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> [1]https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/ |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> I would really, really, REALLY like to see a thorough, civil debate |
| 22 |
>> involving those far more knowledgeable than I on the pros and cons of |
| 23 |
>> systemd vs OpenRC... |
| 24 |
> Well, that's the pickle, isn't it? We have the usual stuff: |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> • OpenRC wasn't able (until very recently) to properly do parallel |
| 27 |
> execution of daemons. There will be someone who will say "that isn't |
| 28 |
> important". |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> • Then there is the inability of OpenRC to properly stop/monitor |
| 31 |
> daemons (everybody here had to use "/etc/init.d/daemon zap" at some |
| 32 |
> point, I suppose). Someone will say that there is experimental cgroups |
| 33 |
> support for OpenRC... "experimental" being the important word, and |
| 34 |
> there is also the little matter of that not being integrated into the |
| 35 |
> official package (AFAIU). Also, with that OpenRC loses the "advantage" |
| 36 |
> of being portable to FreeBSD and/or Hurd. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> • And of course, OpenRC is slow as hell compared to systemd (although |
| 39 |
> there are reports of being really fast using reentrant busybox... I |
| 40 |
> never used that way, so I don't know). Which again, someone will say |
| 41 |
> that "that doesn't matter because I never reboot my machine". Great. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> But then we have the whole load of features that systemd provides that |
| 44 |
> no other init system does (OpenRC included). That is an advantage if |
| 45 |
> you believe that having an standardized plumbing in all "mainstream" |
| 46 |
> Linux distributions has technical merit and is a good design. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
or it is an idiotic decision. Because features means complexity. |
| 50 |
Complexity means bugs. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
And you don't want complexity in PID1 or init. Let those 'features' be |
| 53 |
handled by their own specialists. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
You know, the unix way. Do one thing, do it well. Use text to |
| 56 |
communicate. That stuff. That makes things easy. And flexible. And |
| 57 |
replaceable. |
Archives