[Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd

[tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)]

Stephen Adler wrote:
> ...it's actually
> quite good, in my opinion. It makes it possible to boot your system much
> faster by bringing up
> services in parallel.

I haven't looked at how systemd is implemented yet, much less lived with
it, but one thing that caught my eye in the article was the description
that they did away with the shell scripts of SysVinit and replaced them
with binaries.

There is a good reason why so much of the code that drives system
administration is implemented as shell scripts: it is easily customized,
and allows for great flexibility.

Running service startup code in parallel doesn't necessitate doing away
with shell scripts. It just needs a new coordinating layer and a way to
describe the dependencies. It would be perfectly fine if they created a
binary that accomplishes the coordination. And maybe they did. But the
article give the impression they did more than that.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
The Perl Shop, Newton, MA, USA
"Predictable On-demand Perl Consulting."
http://www.theperlshop.com/