On October 1, 2014 10:27:38 PM EDT, Ruben Safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
That is NOT grounds to grow xinetd into THE init system.
Actually, this is exactly the parallel. xinit has been slowing mothballed because of the inherent security problem with the super server dameon, and systemd is all but the same thing now, but even worse.
They people who did this have no idea wwhat kind of security nightmare they have created for the long haul.
I would like to address a point that Carlos made as to the problems that developers were having working on release deadlines with the initrd system. The ***truth is**** that time being taken was essentail, important and it was a good thing. We are talking about the central core of the operating systems chorographic abilities and command structure. I know this might not be as exciting as porting Mozilla and the gimp, breaking clutter and making background images for kdm....
but it is the ESSENTIAL task of the distributions existense. It is too much work? Bullshit. It was/is the job and the reason for chosing one design over another. Now they have passed this who thing to a couple of redhat engineers, and perhaps not very good ones, btw.
If you don't know when Novell/SUSE decided to implement systemd they hired Sievers for a year or two. I don't know the details, but I clearly remember him pushing code into (pulling code into) factory. I suspect their goal had little to do with reducing the effort associated with supporting sysvinit. Instead, they were looking at the pros related to having enough commonality with red hat to draw in the Oracles of the world as ISVs of SLES. Greg -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org