On 12/24/2012 10:56 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > Even back when hard disks are a mote in the eyes of today's mammoths, > you *can* make /usr part of /, there's no stopping you. Sure, other > SysAdmins may scoff and/or question your sanity, but the choice is > yours. YOU know what's best for your precious servers, YOU made the call. > > But with the latest udev, Lennart et al saw it fit to yank that choice > out of the hands of SysAdmins, while at the same time trying to enforce > a stupidly overbloated init replacement.
I may be really out of the loop or old-fashioned, but what went wrong with the old SysV init scheme? SysV inhereited the init scheme practically in toto from what was created for the intermediate SysIV version that was intermal to Bell Labs. SysIV got used for a few projects, and it was a major improvement over the SysIII scheme. Those developing the SysIV/SysV init scheme tried to anticipate future extensions (especially dependency problems) even to the point of ashing Murry Hill to make chenges to the shell to make some "magic" easier. [Specifically the use of shell exec for input/output file descriptor changes.] [Disclaimer: I was working a Holmdel with a SystemIV based project as a contractor and was involved in some of this work.] >From what has been happening with the systemd stuff, I do not see what advantages it really offers over the SysV scheme and its successors like OpenRC. Someone enlighten me please? -- G.Wolfe Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com
