Rudolf Kastl wrote: > actually i am using und helping with development of initng since > around a year now on my boxes and it wfm. i boot graphically into gdm > in about 15 seconds with some basics and NetworkManager started. My experience was similar: initng brings up the system so quickly that I can't even *see* what's going on before X replaces the console. > initng will also get an event plugin for event functionality and also > has a nice modular design. This is IMHO a "must have" for next generation's Linux init system. It's not worth breaking a mature critical system such as SysVInit just to save a few seconds of boot time. > with the next release iteration there will also be a new init script > system using posix compliant init scripts. This is also important in my opinion: those .i files with their custom syntax are the reason why I said initg looked a bit kludgy in my original posting. > yet i only saw upstart running in compat mode and upstart in compat > mode has exactly 0 benefits towards systemV because it still uses the > systemV init scripts without parallel execution plus it adds yet > another useless sleeping process in that state. What do you mean by compatibility mode? I've only seen Upstart in Ubuntu Feisty. Booting was so fast that I assumed it was parallel already. The nice thing about Upstart is that it looks and feels familiar to anybody who's used to sysvinit. Except that /etc/inittab is gone, but nobody will ever miss it ;-) > launchd doesent build on linux for me yet. if anyone has patches it > would be great if he could make em public. Maybe the APL could be a problem for such a core component. The design of launchd also appears less orthogonal to me than the alternatives, altough I understand that crond and inetd should somehow coordinate with the init system to get a number of corner cases right. Also, a radical approach such as launchd is less likely to become mature enough to replace sysvinit in the short term. You'd need massive coordination between hundereds of package maintainers. And by the way: the init system is not something I'd like to see forked in every Linux distro. Ubuntu adopted Upstart early and Debian will most probably follow soon or later. LSB had just finished standardizing the init scripts and now we're going to break things again. Users *are* going to complain. Analysts *are* going to say Linux is fragmented. Microsoft *is* going to publish studies saying that Linux has higher TCO because of multiple init systems ;-) So maybe it would be wise if the remaining mainstream distros, including Fedora and SuSE, followed their lead quietly instead of starting a pointless init war. This doesn't mean there should be a single codebase. Multiple systems could compete as long as they are 100% (or maybe just 99%) compatible config files and user interface. -- // Bernardo Innocenti - Develer R&D dept. \X/ http://www.develer.com/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
