To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Unfortunately, I believe it is already the case. They mostly use SysV init system, but it's rare to find 2 distros that use the same script to start a service and most of the time you can't use init scripts from distro to distros. And they don't even use the same commands to manage services (chkconfig for red hat, rc-update on gentoo, update-rc.d on debian and so on). I believe the init process is one of the main things that differenciate distros, along with the package manager.
Maybe, but personally I see that as one of the selling points between different distros.
For example: I prefer BSD's init approach and when I need to fall back to linux, the distro I choose tends to be one with BSD influences (Slack, Arch, etc)
Rahul: nothing discussed in Fred's blog is about creating an init system, it's about improving efficiency within an existing one.
Mandriva uses prcsys, which is mentioned in Fred's post. It's a very light parallel initialization system which is 100% compatible with SysV. All that's required for it to work is service dependency information embedded in the comments at the start of the initscripts themselves - which is actually a freedesktop standard. You can disable prcsys and use a conventional SysV boot by passing a single kernel parameter ('nopinit'). prcsys also transparently handles initscripts which don't have the dependency information added (i.e. completely conventional SysV initscripts).
Also, prcsys was there first. =) We've been using it since January 2006, rather before Ubuntu came up with upstart.






Member since:
2005-07-06
I just hope that every damn distribution does not create its own init system. There is just no reason to keep reinventing the wheel. This is just hell for anyone trying to make their applications work across distributions.