On 2012/8/15 Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
