Init : someone could comment this ?

Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond at
Wed Jan 9 13:39:47 UTC 2008

On Jan 9, 2008 7:14 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 14:34 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > I could not disagree more - To me any init-script system requiring
> > > anything outside of what POSIX requires is a mis-conception and flawed
> > > design.
> > >
> > >
> > Is there a reason for this? It still sounds like a whole lot of "PURGE
> > THE IMPURE!!!" to me.
> No, it's "slim down a system to what is inevitably necessary" and don't
> try to fall into the trap of trying to replace one interpreter with
> another one, which in reality only means to _add_ another one.

Having spent enough time with religious people, that sounds a lot like
the same argument for the same reasons.  Well, many religions are
different, so YMMV.

Don't forget about the other advantages to replacing one interpreter
with another.  Sh and POSIX give you a certain kind of flexibility
which I think is falling out of vogue in many circles because many
people don't like embedding several DSL (domain specific languages)
into their production code.  Switching interpreters lets you pick a
language that is more suited to the task, or writing one where there

Also, due to implementation details, it might be easier to optimize
one interpreter over another.  Knowing very little about the CPython
implementation, this argument is probably a stretch.

I think it's quite possible to pick a balance between what we need and
don't need, and the fun part is going to be making up those
requirements, trimming a system down to meet those requirements, and
then coding in the startup routines.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list