| 1 |
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:45:06 -0600 |
| 2 |
Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between |
| 5 |
> systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in |
| 6 |
> systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how* |
| 7 |
> to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in |
| 8 |
> OpenRC/SysV), everything can spiral out of control really easily. And |
| 9 |
> it usually does (again, look at sshd; and that one is actully nicely |
| 10 |
> written, there are all kind of monsters out there abusing the power |
| 11 |
> that shell gives you). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'm having a wet dream right about now :-) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
init has been my pet peeve for years, starting with sysvinit. Why do I |
| 16 |
need 9 runlevels all fully configured, when me, my machines, the |
| 17 |
company's server, every Linux user in the company and every other use I |
| 18 |
have ever personally met, only use 1 of them? Let's not even discuss |
| 19 |
the amount of complexity that gets pushed into the init scripts |
| 20 |
themselves. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Here's what I want: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
When the machine starts, I want services X, Y and Z to run. The |
| 25 |
software figures out what order they must start in and how the deps |
| 26 |
work. Clean, neat, easy. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Maintenance mode is handled easily with two stages in startup: |
| 29 |
early_start and late_start. Maintenance mode is what you have between |
| 30 |
them. Again - nice, clean and simple. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives