On 7/24/2012 11:34 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Cristian Rodríguez
wrote: If you ask me, this is good.
No, it is not, at least not good for packagers and people that in general have to keep up with this always changing ecosystem.
Having two init systems is completely fricking insane, just like it was 6 months ago, no news here, having this topic raised again is just a symptom of it.
Why not?
Everything in linux is swappable. Windowing systems are. GUIs are. Why are init systems not swappable?
I know a distro picks an init system and sticks to it... but that's only because the tools to make init systems easily swappable are lacking. Mantaining two init systems will just make those tools evolve. Is that not good?
Haha welcome to CF world... You could take many of his statements and swap the bad tech idea of the moment for the word Jesus and it would fit perfectly. I prove not to be merely the same in reverse by saying I would love the process you described if it's feasible. I'm not _sure_ it is feasible, but if it is it would absolutely be worth the pain to attain. There are certain standards that most gui apps and windowing systems share that makes them swappable. I'm not sure the init system can be so swappable the same way, because the individual apps would all need to support some kind of new standard but I think it's worth the effort to find out. Personally I think systemd could and should coexist with sysvinit the same way xinetd does. With xinetd, you can start a service like ftpd either by having an init script that starts it directly, or by having an xinetd config file. Sysv init either manages ftpd, or manages xinetd and xinetd manages ftpd. You can even have support for both options on the same system at the same time and yast can even keep track of them and prevent both from trying to be active at the same time. So I would be fine with that arrangement, where sysv init is still THE init, and systemd is one of the services sysv init starts and stops. With a little work putting common names on some capabilities, yast et al could pretty easily keep track for example that only one cron-provider is active at a time, whether it's systemd's built-in or a stand-alone, even though they have different package names. If someone really wants to leverage the supposed benefits of having systemd manage the entire system directly and exclusively, ie no sysv init even installed, I'm sure with some work a way can be figured out to allow that option too. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org