On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:27:33 +0200 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of those fleshed out on a page where I can read them
Here's one part
A good design would make the init process which is always running and everyone must run.
1./ Be a small simple binary
2./ Have no dependencies
3./ Be easy to follow, fix and lockdown, best fit being interpreted languages.
4./ be as fast as possible
systemd meets 4. Sysvinit meets 1-3 well but OpenBSDs init meets 1-3 better
I agree in general, but systemd doesn't meet #4; we are supposed to believe that's the case, but does it really?
So... on my c2d (1.8ghz) machine a reboot with initscripts takes about 40s. With systemd it will either take (1) < 40s (2) > 40s. But probably the deviation will not exceed ~5s.
Given that... why should I care about speed at all? Again your problem with 300 MHz kernel timer may be real, but is it relevant when talking about an init system? Does it overweigh such pros as deprecation of ck and pm-utils, or ability to lock a user in a cgroup?
I am merely replying to what Kevin said. Using Kevin's list systemd has in reality no advantage. Of course you can add items to that list, such as the ones you mentioned. I care nothing about those items you mentioned, while I care about speed. Different people have different opinions, but having an *official* list of advantages/disadvantages can only help. specially if/when shit hits the fan, and tons of users experience fundamental problems with systemd (which is a real possibility); they will this is an imposition without a good reason. -- Felipe Contreras