On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 15.08.2012 11:21, schrieb Kevin Chadwick: >>> 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 > > The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's > /sbin/init, but not by much). But that binary alone is useless, and certainly not *simple*. >> 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. > > Having NO dependencies also means you have to bypass the C library and > implement everything from scratch - that is the worst idea ever. No need to overreact, the meaning is clear: 2. Have as few dependencies as possible, preferably dependencies that are used widely in most systems and that have few dependencies themselves, and are simple themselves >> 3./ Be easy to follow, fix and lockdown, best fit being interpreted >> languages. > > So, init should be a small binary in an interpreted language? Am I the > only one who notices you are contradicting yourself. No. The "services" (in systemd lingo) should be in an interpreted language: e.g. shell. -- Felipe Contreras
