Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:45:06 -0600 > Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> * Finally, and what I think is the most fundamental difference between >> systemd and almost any other init system: The service unit files in >> systemd are *declarative*; you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how* >> to do it. If the service files are shell scripts (like in >> OpenRC/SysV), everything can spiral out of control really easily. And >> it usually does (again, look at sshd; and that one is actully nicely >> written, there are all kind of monsters out there abusing the power >> that shell gives you). > > I'm having a wet dream right about now :-) > > init has been my pet peeve for years, starting with sysvinit. Why do I > need 9 runlevels all fully configured, when me, my machines, the > company's server, every Linux user in the company and every other use I > have ever personally met, only use 1 of them? Let's not even discuss > the amount of complexity that gets pushed into the init scripts > themselves. > > Here's what I want: > > When the machine starts, I want services X, Y and Z to run. The > software figures out what order they must start in and how the deps > work. Clean, neat, easy. > > Maintenance mode is handled easily with two stages in startup: > early_start and late_start. Maintenance mode is what you have between > them. Again - nice, clean and simple. >
Well, I am not normal. I, on a regular basis, use single, boot and default runlevels. So there !! lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
