Christian Seiler <christ...@iwakd.de> writes: > > No, in the contrary. When I first saw Gentoo's system in the mid 2000s, > which was based exclusively on dependencies (but still used scripts on > top of sysvinit), I thought: wow, this is SO much better than all the > other distros at that time. > > To me, anything that doesn't allow me to have dependencies is not worth > my consideration. I've often had to write own services that hook into > the system startup at certain points. And being able to specify > dependencies is something absolutely essential here. Because then I > actually semantically describe why I want a service in a given position > in the boot sequence. Doing it in any other way is madness to me. > > There's a reason why _every_ modern init system supports dependencies > (systemd, Solaris's SMF, nosh, OpenRC, ...), because in the modern > world, where so many things need to be taken care of at boot, it's > absolutely essential to be able to express the relations betwen all > the services that need to be started explicitly in form of > dependencies, otherwise you'd never be able to really tackle the > complexity. >
To use an analogy: there is a reason why programming languages switched from line numbers to named subprograms. Mart -- "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes." --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.