Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 1st Oct 2003 23:09 UTC
General Development OSNews was the first news magazine to break the story on Gnome's Seth Nickell effort to replace the Init system. Soon, it became confusing to many readers as to if Seth is planning to completely replace the Init system or simply "bridge" it. We had a chat with Seth and discussed about his plans on the project (which is a personal project so far) and for Storage, an exciting project which aims to replace the traditional filesystem with a new database-based document store.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
More solutions that go looking for problems
by nharring on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 03:31 UTC

If the author of this "init replacement" is unhappy with his bootup time, perhaps he should analyze where most of that time is spent. On servers it sure isn't during init.
On the Dell PowerEdge 2650 I've been playing with for the last month, 90% of my bootup time (a rough approximation) is spent during POST, and 10% or so doing init. And that's with starting a plethora of network services which depend on eth0 starting, which is using DHCP for goodness sake. I've got a terribly slow configuration and it still starts in sub 30 second times. With a static IP and a more focused server profile that'll drop to a fraction of the time. When I strip some of the devices out of the kernel that don't exist, and thus don't need probing I can shave even more time out of it.
For my desktop I'm in much the same boat. Service dependencies often mean that some serialization is necessary, and on a uniprocessor system trying to context switch between these tasks isn't likely to buy you much speedup.
Furthermore, the concept of applications being responsible for interfacing with some of service bus is ridiculous. Servers are standalone components of a system, and should be initialized and then left alone. If you want them monitored or restarted or to "throw exceptions" then use something like daemontools. Hell, if you want them restarted put them in the inittab with a respawn option. That's what its there for.
All in all this looks like somebody has dreamt up some pie in the sky solution for something that nobody really has a problem with, and hasn't even bothered to analyze what exists today.