heh I don't believe they fully understand how things work. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:15 AM, 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). > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 4./ be as fast as possible > > > > systemd meets 4. Sysvinit meets 1-3 well but OpenBSDs init meets 1-3 > > better > > Where are your AUR packages that provide OpenBSD's init? I haven't seen > them. > > >
