Red Hat's response to my system-config-samba rhel6 issue

[tmetro-blu-5a1Jt6qxUNc at public.gmane.org (Tom Metro)]

David Kramer wrote:
> Derek Martin wrote:
>> The move away from the traditional init allows for booting the system
>> to be faster and more flexible.
> 
> In what way?  How is it more flexible to remove runlevels and a
> straightforward easy to manage set of directories and replace them with
> more black boxes?

The gist of it, as I recall, is that the SysV approach is sequential and
 only has the granularity of runlevels (which, except for a few, were
mostly unused). The newer systems allow each service to declare
dependencies, which allows the system to run as many in parallel as it
can, as long as the dependencies are met. Having the dependencies
formally defined also provides greater granularity, as you can determine
exactly which services to restart when some hardware gets woken up or
some other event occurs.


> And there isn't even one replacement.  Some services start up with
> the init.d scripts. ... Some start up with the "start" command.

We're in a transitionary period, and having mixed technologies is common
on Linux, as I'm sure you know.

Whether a slow moving, stable distribution like RHEL (that's what we're
talking about here, right?) should blend mechanisms is another matter. I
would expect a distribution with those goals to make more of a single
step change once the majority of services have been ported over to the
new system.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/