On Mon, 07.01.08 11:59, Les Mikesell (lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > Lennart Poettering wrote: >> Everytime I hear someone mentioning initng I get a headache. >> They got almost everything wrong you can get wrong in an init >> system. The kept the worst things from SysV (such as numerical >> "runlevels"), > > What's wrong with numerical runlevels other than Linux flavors starting the > network in level 2 instead of 3? They don't make any sense, that's wrong with them. Why only 6 of them? I never understood why a process like "shutdown" or "reboot" should be considered a "level". Do you? Nobody knows what the actually mean. They are using numeric ids for no reason. I mean, people invented stuff like DNS for not having to deal with random numbers that often. Why should they deal with random numbers when dealing with init systems, then? Almost all distributions use only 2 or 3 of them. Their configuration is plain awful. They're totally awkward, because there are numeric levels and the magic runlevel S. Also, init doesn't really have any information what service is running in which one is not for the current runlevel. To work around that the configuration is highly redundant with lots of symlinks. Then, on the philosophical level, having a single set of "runlevels" just doesn't cut it, because services these days should only be started maybe when a certain HW is around, or when some specific user software runs that wants to make use of it. How do runlevels fit into that? They are too static to reflect this dynamic way of starting and stopping services properly. In short, they don't make any sense. They should die. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
