Luke Macken (lmacken(a)redhat.com) said:
I've been playing around with initng quite a bit lately and have
had a
good amount of luck getting it running successfully on my rawhide laptop, a
VMWare test environment, and my FC4 desktop. Had a few issues right off the
bat, but eventually worked most of them out (thanks to the help of
Daniel Malmgren). I believe fedora related patches even hit their repos
as well.
Here's what I've seen so far...
initng -
http://initng.thinktux.net
======
Pros
o Dynamic service dependencies
o Service monitoring
o Automatic respawning of services
o Parallelized service startup
o Plugin support
o Very active and helpful community
- Extremely open to getting initng working by default in Fedora
o Supports /etc/rc.* scripts via a plugin, but uses it's own format by
default (also supports xml init scripts via plugin)
o FAST AS HELL[0]
Cons
o Gentoo look-and-feel (brings back old memories)
- Having such an open-minded community, giving initng a more
unified/professional feel would hopefully be accepted
o No inherent D-BUS support
- initng's plugin support would allow this to be accomplished (but I
would bring it up to the developers; who knows, they might want it
upstream?)
One of the ideas was that eventually services would expose
*themselves* over d-bus without wrappers, and that would be the
native management framework. I'm not sure how that would fit into
this model. It could be something to look at, though.
[0]: I generated bootcharts for a default FC4 install with minimal
tweaking (removed a few unnecessary services) and FC4 with a
default initng install. These are in no way supposed to be an accurate
measurement of the true speeds of either of these versions of init
(they are also both running different init scripts).
http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/initng-bootchart.png
http://people.redhat.com/lmacken/SysVinit-bootchart.png
Hm, comparing against a SysVinit bootup *without* rhgb might
be interesting, as it's known that that adds to the startup time.
Bill