Init : someone could comment this ?

[Casey Dahlin]

Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> People running fedora will expect to use sysV style init 
>> configuration to control it.
>
> Now, I think Lennart is right in pushing the concept behind Upstart 
> and the new InitKit, both of which break the init config paradigm and 
> its runlevels.
>
> The reason was actually outlined in Miguel de Icaza's "Let's Make Unix 
> Not Suck" a few years back. It outlined some weaknesses of the Unix 
> pipe and filter and signalling system: pipes are unidirectional, data 
> is not typed, signals are crude in essence. Component-based thinking 
> through CORBA led to the invention of Bonobo, then the condensed DCOP 
> and eventually D-Bus which actually does the tricks most sought after: 
> bidirectional messages between processes, typed messages, a strict 
> namespace, broadcast messages.
>
> The SysVInit system currently suffers from not being able to use such 
> a mechanism.
>
> Upstart solved it, basically, but has some design flaws and is used in 
> init-compatibility mode in Ubuntu. So now InitKit is coming along.
>
> It's worth sacrificing runlevels to reach the next step of unsucky Unix.
>
> POSIX does not mandate init and its runlevels, nor does the Single 
> Unix spec. I think there is a good reason for: it was awkward, so it 
> wasn't standardized. If everyone though it was a good idea they would 
> have standardized it back when POSIX was written. (I wasn't a member 
> of the committes tho, so who knows.)
>
> Linus
>
I agree. Also, I don't necessarily think we should wait for InitKit. 
InitKit is more of a fork-and-abandon of upstart (though major changes 
are in order) and I don't thing Upstart would be a bad stepping stone in 
the meantime. I will talk to the developer about this. Getting features 
to users sooner is a good thing :)

--CJD