On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Chris Turner <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 08/27/13 06:44, John Marino wrote: > >> Also, really there should be a front-end tool for designing SMF >> manifests, there's nothing saying it has to be written directly. I'm >> guessing there are already such tools. >> > > If you need a front end tool to configure your init system, > you're doing it wrong. > > RCNG, in addition to being the 1st in the 'new school init' wave > (e.g. stepping out of traditional SysV vs BSD init), is > the only one that both kept things simple and also dynamic > and easy to understand. 'Rcorder' is a great tool. SMF, upstart, systemd > are all overengineered crap. > > While I understand the latter two are trying to inject some layer of > flexability/dynamism into init systems, imho they do this in a clunky > and silly way, from 'within' init, rather than adding clean hooks > so that customization can be 'injected' from 'without' - which would > have kept things simple for the traditional, static case, but without > complicating the new-school dynamic/multiple-configuration case. If that > is desired, someone needs to add some flexibility 'the bsd way' imho.. > > As for 'why would sun invest' - it seems to me (based on pure speculation) > that the reasoning behind SMF is that it was designed > to make a more 'statically verifiable' init which in turn allows > for easier specification / packaging / various other PHB / proprietary > software garbage for binary-only and consulting vendors for > large companies and governments - and also allows for clearer/simpler > integration with their 'service managment' components - e.g. sun > clustering, > JMX managment consoles, etc, as it is simpler to interface with from the > J2EE > java bloatware application servers that run such items > (ever try to parse text in java? how about xml? now you understand why java > devs are xml nuts) Also, since sun controls over SMF itself, and it is > hugely bloated, it allows SUN an innate 'lead time' on any managment > products > developed against it (think microsoft / binary incompatibility), which at > the time was a key part of Sun's hybrid open/closed source strategy.. > > again, pure speculation, but it's the only reason I can see for such > overengineering into an init system. > > E.g - it's designed for things that are wedged into a complex layer cake > of beaurocracy, which in some places makes tons of sense (e.g. when you > are required to work within a complex layer cake of beurocracy - e.g. 4x > vendors > interfacing on a proprietary system which needs multiple layers of > contractually > binding executive signoff and full-lifecycle budget planning to change any > component > interfaces ), but probably not the best for those wanting a simple system > onto > which they can add their own customization 'spice' (e.g. me - and I would > dare > to say most of us) > > All the other features mentioned: > > - controlled shutdown > - restart > - dependancy map > - parallelism > > could easily be tacked on to rcng with a bit of ingenuity, and probably by > using > simple shell conventions or minor tweaks to 'rcorder'/'rc.subr', etc. > rather > than strict / annoying / static verification, and without destryoing the > simplicity and elegance of rcng either for the common case > > Plus it's CDDL, isn't it? > > so, in short: opinion == ptooey! > > Cheers, > > - Chris > guys really?? you would be better suited to port lanchd as it would be easier to integrate, and has all the same features
