On 2012/8/15 Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
1./ Be a small simple binary
The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's /sbin/init, but not by much).
Just 26 times as large and who knows how many times more complicated.
systemd has not the same purpose that /sbin/init. You are comparing completely different things.
2./ Have no dependencies
That is pure BS. If something has no dependencies, it has to do everything in the binary itself. You either end up with no features, or potential for tons of bugs.
No it has the potential and freedom to do anything or nothing without the overhead of copying a much larger binary when forking processes or imposing any limitations.
Forking processes does not copy binaries.
Twisting my words yet again like so many other posts which are pro systemd. Without a C library which was invented as the heart of UNIX you wouldn't have a UNIX-like OS or any general OS including Windows.
Here's a list of dependencies for you. There are likely many kernel CONFIG options and modules required than the couple listed here and likely growing.
cgroups, dbus, ipv6, udev, kmod, pam, libcap
These dependencies just enumerate basic system administration tools in the form of libraries. A boot procedure relying on shell scripts would have the same dependencies as commands, that doesn't make any difference. I am not pro-systemd at all, I'm even rather for alternatives. Please don't make the pro-alternative arguments ridiculous. Rémy.