systemd (Was Re: tmpfs for strategic directories)

Jesse Keating jkeating at
Wed May 26 18:19:22 UTC 2010

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:08 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:54 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 26 May 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > 
> > > While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
> > > regularly, and it is something most admins can do with ease.
> > > Turn them in a C program and you left admins out in the cold, most of
> > > them.
> > >
> > > I would be very, very wary of accepting a C "init script".
> > > An unmanageable system is a useless system.
> > 
> > +20 million.
> > 
> > I couldn't agree more. They need to be scripts, considering how seldom 
> > they actually run it makes even less sense to chase down optimization in 
> > them by making them compiled.
> I *very* strongly agree also. I do change init scripts, but even more
> than this, I see a growing trend for Linux systems to be less friendly
> to user modification. We are not so smart that we should do this.
> Jon.

So everybody seems to keep assuming that if more of the start up is done
in the daemon itself that you'll lose the ability to configure it.  I
don't think that's the desired case, just that configuration will move
to the configuration files, and not in the startup script.  Separation
of config from code seems smart to me, particularly come rpm update

Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the devel mailing list