On 9/11/2014 10:58 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > Can we agree that SysV Init is ancient, and is due for at least major > reform, if not outright replacement ?
Ancient? Yes. Due for reform? Maybe. Depends on whether or not you consider lumping device management, system logging and superserver into the init system qualifies. I for one do not. > Some have been init reform. Efforts to reform Init with automagic > learning for parallelizing of boot order seemed promising to me, but > have fallen by the wayside. I'm unclear why - did they fail or were > they successful but even in aggregate insufficient reform? Or did the > Big Distros suffer NIH ? > * Has Debian indicated what they intend to do for their BSD and Herd > kernel builds, since SystemD requires linux-specific kernel features? Debian will continue to use sysvinit with makefile concurrency for GNU/kFreeBSD. Debian/Hurd just recently switched from their homegrown init to sysvinit with the same mechanisms used in kFreeBSD. -- Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
