On 07/08/2014 09:27 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> Everything, except the kernel, dependent on
> Poettering's (employed by Red Hat) windows-style gigantic systemd.
> Nothing can run without systemd's prior consent. One tiny bug in systemd
> and everything crashes.
How is this any different from any other init? Init is the boss,
regardless of which flavor of init, full stop.
SystemV init has many many problems. The worst problem is that it only
deals with start and forget and stop and forget, with relatively fragile
shell scripts running as root doing the grunt work. A resilient system
init should be a bit more hands-on about making sure its children
continue to live... (yuck; you can tell I'm a parent (of five)!). Or,
in Bill Cosby's words as Cliff Huxtable to Theo, "I brought you into
this world, and I can take you out!" But an init that takes a bit more
care to its offspring, making sure they stay alive until such time as
they are needed to die (yuck again!) is a vast improvement over 'start
it and forget it.'
And, of course, CentOS 6 doesn't use straight SysVInit anyway, but it
uses upstart, which lived for quite a while.
Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember the recursive acronym MUNG and
hereby apply that acronym to this thread......
I'm also familiar with feeping creaturism.....
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
