On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much > more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to > see a use case where it is not better.
With all due respect, this might be utter bullshit, but is at least [citation needed]. I have yet to see a failing pid 1 (be that sysv, upstart or systemd). Acquiring data on failure modes of any of those systems appears like a difficult task and d-devel might not be the best place to discuss that. > But regardless, we don???t need more than one init system. We just need a > good one. This is completely unrelated to GNOME. The bunch of idiots who > try to pin it down on GNOME, Fedora or the Illuminati look like just > another group of conspiracy theories lunatics. The problem is not that people disagree on that a good init system is needed, but about what good comprises. Some people believe that a good init system should run on all supported architectures including kfreebsd-*. By this particular metric sysv init still outperforms systemd. In fact for every combination of init systems you will find a metric where one outperforms the other. And this is where choice makes sense IF the benefits outweigh its costs. Unfortunately that if is a very tough question. Let me therefore direct a question to those in favour of a switchable /bin/sh: What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as opposed to other viable mechanisms to select a shell such as the shebang of your scripts) Answers I've seen so far: * Backwards compatibility with systems that still use bashisms. * Users who want to choose /bin/sh to satisfy some belief in superiority. Summaries or references to previous discussion appreciated. Helmut -- 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/20130512174058.ga29...@alf.mars
