Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Optional /usr merge in Gentoo

[pk]

On 2013-08-19 08:35, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> sysvinit, like X11, needs a massive overhaul and a sprint clean.

Yes, an overhaul is always welcome. But most people criticising these
systems (and other systems) just say that they are bad without pointing
out what is bad. How can you fix something without knowing what's bad?
To me the problem with sysvinit (and X11) seems mostly to be a
philosophical one. Some people say: "this doesn't work the way I want it
to - therefore it's crap!". While others (like me) say: "I have no
problem with this - it works fine!".

From a technical standpoint, does sysvinit fulfill the technical
requirements (i.e. the "specification")? I honestly don't know, I just
think/assume it does since we've been using it for, what, 30 years or so
(SVR1 was released in January 1983 acc. to [1]) and I've never had any
problems with it. Does the "specification" need to be updated? I'm sure
it does but to throw out everything and start from scratch is not the
way I would go (unless it's technically required because of some
fundamental issue - and I disagree with people thinking there's a
fundamental issue here).
 Now, some people who thinks the computer should sing and dance to them
(seems to me mostly the Gnome crowd) while booting, I can understand
that sysvinit may not fit their "philosophy". I am not one of them.
Basically I want the computer to do as little as possible, i.e. not
waste one cycle unless _absolutely_ necessary; _all_ compute power
should be available to me and me only for whatever purpose I see fit.
The computer is a tool, a hammer if you will and I don't want a hammer
with built-in radio, a fan to cool you down, a radiator to warm you up
or a tv screen (or whatever). Of course, computers being so complex
these days (I started out with a Commodore PET in the late 70ies), there
has to be compromises. And I think that sysvinit with it's init scripts
(i.e. OpenRC) is a good compromise because I don't care about boot time
(as mentioned in another mail most of the time is spent in BIOS/UEFI
anyway). Having said that I wouldn't mind if we refined sysvinit/OpenRC
carefully, getting rid of bugs (even though I've never encountered any),
refining the "blueprints/specification" so that it fits the customers
wishes (within reason).

Basically what I'm trying to say is: The "technical" arguments that have
been brought forward pro/con sysvinit(+OpenRC)/systemd I think is bogus.
It is just a philosophical disagreement between parties having different
goals, which I'm not sure can be fully satisfied by either side.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_V

Best regards

Peter K