Remarks about the benchmark
Posted Nov 29, 2012 15:14 UTC (Thu) by HelloWorld
In reply to: Remarks about the benchmark
Parent article: Langasek: Upstart in Debian
if you define "not having a valid point" to be "not agreeing that when I say it's better, it's better"...
There are a lot of people who don't like systemd, and they have expressed why. I believe that many have made valid points,
I guess this is where you and I are different. I've seen one thing that comes close to what I'd consider a valid argument in favour of sysvinit: init must never crash, and since sysvinit is smaller than systemd, there's a smaller chance for it to crash.
There are two problems with that. The first is that it's an entirely theoretical argument and lacks empirical evidence: systemd doesn't crash all the time, in fact I've never seen it crash. It is possible to make programs of that size (and much bigger ones, like the Linux kernel) reliable. The second is that it entirely ignores all the other ways in which systemd is more robust and secure than sysvinit: less need for service dependency configuration, service supervision with cgroups, predictable environments for service execution, fewer messy distro-specific shell scripts, syscall filtering, capability limitation, network isolation, SELinux support, on and on it goes.
So, if you think you or anyone else has a compelling argument to make against systemd, tell me, I'm listening. But I haven't heard one so far, and my opinion about what a sensible thing for the Debian GNU/Linux developers to spend time on would be reflects that.
to post comments)