| 1 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
>On 19/08/2013 14:13, pk wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> sysvinit, like X11, needs a massive overhaul and a sprint clean. |
| 4 |
>> Yes, an overhaul is always welcome. But most people criticising these |
| 5 |
>> systems (and other systems) just say that they are bad without |
| 6 |
>pointing |
| 7 |
>> out what is bad. How can you fix something without knowing what's |
| 8 |
>bad? |
| 9 |
>> To me the problem with sysvinit (and X11) seems mostly to be a |
| 10 |
>> philosophical one. Some people say: "this doesn't work the way I want |
| 11 |
>it |
| 12 |
>> to - therefore it's crap!". While others (like me) say: "I have no |
| 13 |
>> problem with this - it works fine!". |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>I find sysvinit to be unwieldy and clunky. Perhaps not so much the code |
| 17 |
>itself, but surely the interface it presents to me the sysadmin. All |
| 18 |
>that rc.[0-6] nonsense - what's that all about? In all my days I have |
| 19 |
>never seen a computer running *nix that wasn't fully satisfied with two |
| 20 |
>exclusive running states: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>- normal operation (whether console, headless, X) |
| 23 |
>- maintenance mode (busybox on console). |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>So why do I have 6 of them? The runlevels themselves are fixed and |
| 26 |
>rigid. I want them somewhat more flexible, I actually don't want a |
| 27 |
>bluetooth daemon *running*all*the*time* - really, it should only start |
| 28 |
>when I enable bluetooth. This may not be the best analogy but you get |
| 29 |
>the point, the OS needs to react to changes in the environment and |
| 30 |
>sometimes those reactions are best dealt with by the service manager. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>OpenRC to my mind made huge strides in dragging this into modern times |
| 33 |
>by making runlevels declarative. It all make so much sense in Gentoo. |
| 34 |
>As |
| 35 |
>for the bulk of the code, I don't have issue with that. PID=1 does what |
| 36 |
>it needs to do. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>I suppose I can sum up the changed environment in one word: hotplug |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
>X11, well that's another story and probably way off topic. It was |
| 41 |
>designed for hardware and architectures that haven't existed for 20+ |
| 42 |
>years. Almost all factors that made X11 awesome in the 80s and 90s |
| 43 |
>simply are not there anymore. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
X11 was still really awesome in 2002. When we used remote graphical logons to different machines. |
| 46 |
It also helped with performance of certain desktop applications. Running the application on a different machine (with better CPU) then the machine I was working at always made people wonder why the same application was performing so badly on theirs ;) |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
But these days. Having fast reliable performance locally is better. With a decent RDP that can connect to an existing desktop without having to set it up as shared from the beginning is more useful. Any ideas on that? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Joost |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. |
Archives