Posted May 27, 2010 7:50 UTC (Thu) by ghigo (guest, #5297)
[Link]
I read the blog. In fact the author says:
<cite>
The idea is actually even older than launchd. Prior to launchd the venerable inetd worked much like this: sockets were centrally created in a daemon that would start the actual service daemons passing the socket file descriptors during exec(). However the focus of inetd certainly wasn't local services, but Internet services (although later reimplementations supported AF_UNIX sockets, too). It also wasn't a tool to parallelize boot-up or even useful for getting implicit dependencies right.
</cite>
I wrote that systemd is more powerful than (x)inetd, but the concept is the same.
The road forward for systemd
Posted May 27, 2010 8:04 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
You are replying to the same author of the blog post and developer of systemd, FYI.
The road forward for systemd
Posted May 31, 2010 15:34 UTC (Mon) by mezcalero (guest, #45103)
[Link]
I am the author of the blog story. And there I try to make clear that systemd is substantially more then inetd. inetd is for lazy-loading services. systemd uses the same technique but does so to parallelize boot-up and make dependency information redundant.
So, please, don't compare systemd with inetd too much, because that misses the core point.
If you don't see what the difference between systemd and inetd is, then please read the story again, particularly the part about "Parallelizing Socket Services".