Am 16.02.2014 17:50, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote: >> On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]: >>> >>> 1. sysvinit (status quo) >>> 2. systemd >>> 3. upstart >>> 4. openrc (experimental) >>> 5. One system on Linux, something else on non-linux >>> 6. multiple >>> >>> It should also be noted that no one in the TC voted OpenRC above >>> systemd AND upstart, and that while a couple voted systemd below >>> everything else, it can be argued that it was a tactical vote. >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> [1]https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/ >> >> I would really, really, REALLY like to see a thorough, civil debate >> involving those far more knowledgeable than I on the pros and cons of >> systemd vs OpenRC... > Well, that's the pickle, isn't it? We have the usual stuff: > > • OpenRC wasn't able (until very recently) to properly do parallel > execution of daemons. There will be someone who will say "that isn't > important". > > • Then there is the inability of OpenRC to properly stop/monitor > daemons (everybody here had to use "/etc/init.d/daemon zap" at some > point, I suppose). Someone will say that there is experimental cgroups > support for OpenRC... "experimental" being the important word, and > there is also the little matter of that not being integrated into the > official package (AFAIU). Also, with that OpenRC loses the "advantage" > of being portable to FreeBSD and/or Hurd. > > • And of course, OpenRC is slow as hell compared to systemd (although > there are reports of being really fast using reentrant busybox... I > never used that way, so I don't know). Which again, someone will say > that "that doesn't matter because I never reboot my machine". Great. > > But then we have the whole load of features that systemd provides that > no other init system does (OpenRC included). That is an advantage if > you believe that having an standardized plumbing in all "mainstream" > Linux distributions has technical merit and is a good design.
or it is an idiotic decision. Because features means complexity. Complexity means bugs. And you don't want complexity in PID1 or init. Let those 'features' be handled by their own specialists. You know, the unix way. Do one thing, do it well. Use text to communicate. That stuff. That makes things easy. And flexible. And replaceable.
