Le 17/02/2016 22:56, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Mitt Green writes:
>In case you haven't read this,
>Denys Vlasenko tells about
>his experiences with sysvinit.
>There he refers to daemontools
>and runit as superior to the traditional
>init.
>
>https://busybox.net/~vda/init_vs_runsv.html
Wrt "Do
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 17/02/2016 22:56, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> Mitt Green writes:
>>> >In case you haven't read this,
>>> >Denys Vlasenko tells about
>>> >his experiences with sysvinit.
>>> >There he refers to daemontools
>>> >and runit as superior to the traditional
>>> >init.
>>> >
>>>
asbesto wrote:
>Really I don't know what kind or version of E are all you using>because here
>works like a charm, it's pure beauty, simple and
>effective.>and only 60 Mb.
>Icons and everything.
>Are we talking about the same Enlightenment? :D
[by the way, you replied to me directly]
Eye
Le 18/02/2016 12:37, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
I mean that "Do you trust this code! It had at least one bug!" is a
silly statement.
I didn't read the same thing as you.
I read more trust is needed in pid1 than in any other program. I
also read one cannot trust a program just because it
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 18/02/2016 12:37, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> I mean that "Do you trust this code! It had at least one bug!" is a
>> silly statement.
> I didn't read the same thing as you.
>
> I read more trust is needed in pid1 than in any other program. I
> also read one cannot
Le 18/02/2016 17:15, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
I suspect that many people who are
(unspecifically) 'offended' by that suffer from a bad case of "But
that's not how I would have done it!" disease as it's written in a more
traditional UNIX(*) style which has gone thoroughly out of fashion more
than
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:15:55 +0100
Didier Kryn wrote:
> Hence the argument already exposed by several persons on this
> list, in particular Laurent: let's pid1 do *only* what no other
> program can do.
NOTE: My response is based on *my* readi
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 18/02/2016 17:15, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> I suspect that many people who are
>> (unspecifically) 'offended' by that suffer from a bad case of "But
>> that's not how I would have done it!" disease as it's written in a more
>> traditional UNIX(*) style which has gone th
Steve Litt writes:
[...]
> My opinion is that although this is indeed a bad thing, I'm
> willing to risk it to get the breathtaking simplicity of Rich
> Felker's vision in http://ewontfix.com/14/.
Process #1 doesn't receive signals unless it installed a handler for
them. This means blocking sig
Didier Kryn writes:
[...]
>> That's a theoretical argument I agree with: I think the server/ service
>> management code shouldn't be part of init especially since it's
>> virtually unused but that's really a tiny addition to the process
>> starting code which more-or-less has to exist, anyway.
>
Little late to this thread, that sounds like annoying default behaviour and
more of this same mentality that breaking backwards compatibility is OK, it's
really not at all. Really it should be the other way, set -N to use the new
wrapping. But hey why not right, systemd does this so we should to
11 matches
Mail list logo
