On Sunday, August 21, 2011 05:22:17 PM Genes MailLists wrote: > On 08/21/2011 05:09 PM, Steve Clark wrote: > >>> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html > >>> > >>> Read the part about "Parallelizing Socket Services". It explains why > >>> socket actviation is interesting, > >> > >> I find a secure OS interesting. Bootup speed does not matter much to me. > > > > Obviously a lot on this list value boot up speed over security! > > Obviously, anyone who values security over bootup speed has the right > values. > > I share those values as should everyone who is clueful :-) The thing I think about is that is if the solution for parallelizing boot is an xinetd replacement, was there any thought to just patching xinetd? As a former upstream maintainer (and former because its not actively developed nor passed along to another caretaker), we would have taken patches that added AF_UNIX or dbus activation if we understood the need. As proof, Rob added rendezvous support before it went into its unmaintained state. Imagine an updated xinetd + upstart. Would that not solve the problems, cause less turmoil, and be more secure? -Steve -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
