Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 27th Aug 2006 08:18 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Ubuntu is developing the "upstart", a replacement for the init daemon, the process spawned by the kernel that is responsible for starting, supervising and stopping all other processes on the system. The article compares upstart to Solaris SMF, Apple's launchd, and initng.
Thread beginning with comment 156301
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Poor initng comparison
by Tom5 on Sun 27th Aug 2006 10:40 UTC
Tom5
Member since:
2005-09-17

I've tried various init systems: sysvinit, minit and initng. I'm currently using initng as it seems to be the least bad of the three.

I'm a bit confused by their analysis of it though:

The difference in model can be summed up as “initng starts with a list of goals and works out how to get there, upstart starts with nothing and finds out where it gets to."

That sounds list an advantage of initng to me. I say what I want running, and it works out the most efficient way of getting to that state (running only other program that are needed).

Their example of initng's networking 'problem' is odd too. By default, initng's default.runlevel has 'net/all' as a goal, ensuring that networking will be configured. Their complaint is that if you remove this goal (to say that you don't require networking) AND nothing else you want to run requires networking then... networking won't be configured under initng. That's what you want, isn't it?

They complain that:

It’s also not clear how the dependencies interact with the different types of job, a dependency on Apache would need the daemon to be running where a dependency on “checkroot” would need the script to have finished running.

Since initng already works, this clearly isn't actually a problem (I think that initng uses 'services' and 'daemons' to handle the two different cases).

I'm not saying initng is perfect: it's still fairly confusing, the error messages are difficult to understand, syntax errors in the configuration files can make it crash, and most of the required documentation is not yet written, but the complaints in the article about it just don't seem to make sense.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Poor initng comparison
by r_a_trip on Mon 28th Aug 2006 16:48 in reply to "Poor initng comparison"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, a thorough comparison might not have been on the list at Ubuntu... It might be that the superficial comparison is a weak explanation that already existing solutions didn't fit Ubuntu's purpose.

If I read it right, initng requires the user to choose what he wants to run and the user needs to configure initng accordingly.

Ubuntu's philosophy is that the default system needs to assume that the enduser doesn't know anything about what he wants, so the system needs to do as much as possible to make the particular configuration it runs on work. It is a "just works" philosophy. It is absolutely not aimed at power users.

That is why startup is as autosensing as possible and requires as little input as possible from an unwitting end-user. It is noob-friendly (or it will be).

I like the idea of having a no brains required init. For newbies it poses the least amount of problems and power users (like me ;) can still get out their pliers and bend it into shape if the fit is a little off.

Reply Parent Score: 1