On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:57:50AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > Some things must be as simple as possible even today. > > Care to elaborate why? To save memory on an 8 GB workstation? Even the 25 US$ > Raspberry Pi has enough power for systemd.
This is obvious. For security and stability reasons. This is KISS. > Are you also choosing FAT32 over ext4 because it is simpler? Yes, of course. In some embedded devices we use fat32 or ext2. It simpler and faster. > > May be init today should has some new features, but systemd is not such new > > init. systemd is a wrong way. See plan9 for a good design examples. > > What makes you think that systemd does it the wrong way? They are using a > very similar concept that Apple uses very successfully on MacOS X since 10.4 > while no one in this universe has ever touched Plan 9 again. Who said that Apple concepts are technically good? I don't think so. > People are constantly insisting that systemd is too bloated or unreliable, > but yet no one has really come up with real examples to prove that. I think this is the question of the near future. > Yes, the core binary of System V Init is smaller than systemd's. However, > System V Init needs a lot of bloat in form of hacky bash scripts using even > more external tools like sed and awk to be actually useful in any regard. And what? The easy and power extension mechanisms are bad? I don't understand, why do people that don't like and don't understand unix ideas still use it and complain about it? > And I think it makes way more sense to have all the functionality of the init > system integrated into it's core binary rather than depending on external > scripts which will hopefully do what init expects from them. Sorry, but this is not true. This is the bad design and a wrong way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121115061159.GA7358@localhost
