To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"""Well, they did get boot time down to 17 seconds, which is comparable to what systems like InitNG often get."""
Well, none of ther other 15 sys5init replacements has ever taken off and gotten used to any great degree.
The solution is obvious: Bake up another one.
We do need *something* better than sys5init.
But unless they have something really compelling, like this is not, it's just another voice in the cacophony.
Canonical's "solution", Upstart, is just too pie in the sky for my tastes. So much of what they are trying to do would be a "solution in search of a problem"... except that their solution to the elusive problem doesn't exist yet and won't for a good while.
initng always seemed like a good solution to the real problem to me. We need a parallelized boot process. It's not like SCO Openserver has not had parallelized boot for *10 years now*! If SCO can do it...
There's no need to finish that last sentence, I hope.






Member since:
2005-07-08
"Limiting Resource Is IO, Not CPU"
Quite wrong. People has already (Suse, etc) tried to preload absolutely *everything* ie: optimizing the IO as much as it could be optimized.
Result: The system still was booting up slowly. Reason: even if optimizing the I/O gains a lot of seconds, what makes linux be behind windows/mac os x in this field is the fact that the linux bootup process is just doing way too many things. Not just in the scripts, but in X.org, gdm, gnome, etc. Pardus can't make fast slow software, and many software that is used in bootup is slow in the linux land. See the "why userspace sucks" talk from dave jones. This is why people is optimizing gnome's startup, etc.