On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote: [snip] > The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide > more functionality than any other init system, more correctness > (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well > defined behavior (all systemd systems boot exactly the same), more > stability (I'll claim that Lennart's C is better than any of the > boot-time shell scripts I've seen) and well understandability depends > who much you can understand C. Probably a bit less understandable for > sysadmins, but since they can just play with config files, it's > probably easier to understand in the end (and much less prone to > breaking than mucking around shell scripts). As you apparently have no idea what a sysadmin does I'd appreciate it if people like you didn't try to guess what would make things better and instead listened to people that have more than their desktop to run. (Hint: It's not pressing reset buttons)
Given the choice between a single line of shell ( cat "$urandom_seed" > /dev/urandom ) or 145 lines of undocumented C (which, if naively modified by me, might just make systemd segfault) ... there is no choice. I do agree with you on one point - most init scripts are really bad code, but that doesn't mean shell is bad, it means that you need to educate people and file bugs. I've laughed at SLES' /etc/bashrc, I read most of upstart and wondered how ... why ... is it can be drunk tiem? Still that doesn't mean that rewriting it in bad C is in any way more agreeable, and you just made debugging exquisitely painful. Yey.
