Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras: >>> 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*. /sbin/init from sysvinit alone is useless. What is your point? >>> 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 Okay, where exactly does systemd violate that? >>> 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. Why should they be? As far as I understand, they're human-readable text files. One might say this is an "interpreted language".
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
