The road forward for systemd

The road forward for systemd

Posted May 27, 2010 10:37 UTC (Thu) by Tobu (subscriber, #24111)
In reply to: The road forward for systemd by clugstj
Parent article: The road forward for systemd

My take on the inetd/systemd relationship is that systemd merges init concepts and inetd concepts. You could do things separately, with an inetd that supports unix domain sockets like xinetd, a user-level init like runit, and an optional dependency resolver to configure both (runit starts everything by default, the resolver would have to mask services that aren't explicitly needed at a given runlevel). It just wouldn't be very convenient. xinetd wasn't meant for services that can be activated on multiple sockets, or through d-bus activation. And neither xinetd nor runit support cgroups. On the other hand, a user-level systemd can replace xinetd and runit, or be a hybrid of both.

---

to post comments