Dax Kelson wrote: > On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 14:56 -0700, Lamont R. Peterson wrote: >> On Monday 14 November 2005 02:24pm, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >>> Same here. A lot of people were holding their breath for this, trying >>> not to scare you off - seems it didn't have the intended effect. >>> >>> Will go AOL from now on ;) >> Or we could all just hit Harald's <harald@xxxxxxxxxx> email directly with our >> AOL "Me too"'s and spare the list. ;) >> >> You'll get at least 7 votes from us at Guru Labs; as long as there is no XML >> in it. > > Well, more accurately, as long as it doesn't suck. :) > > The devil is in the design and implementation details ... yadda yadda. > > Dax Kelson > Which, of course, brings up the question of what the details actually are. When we say, "replace SysVinit", is everyone actually talking about replacing init, or do we think we're talking about replacing initscripts (which is an entirely different beast altogether). I would vote for leaving init alone, but doing a more dependency-based startup procedure, kind of like *ahem* gentoo. When its all said and done, however this is accomplished, I would really like to see services start up in parallel. It would really help our boot-up time. Even Windows does this... why not Fedora? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
