Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 17:53 UTC (Wed) by dcg (subscriber, #9198)
In reply to: Introducing /run by rwmj
Parent article: Introducing /run

IMO it's not correct to say that the shell scripts have been replaced with C. The logic of the init system has certainly been rewritten in C. Some daemons have been modified to be able to be run without needing to do any shell parsing (and I don't understand why it would be a bad thing). But what dictates the behaviour of the init process is not C code, but configuration files. So, most of the real meat of the init system has not been rewritten in C code, but "systemd configuration code". Which are easily hackable...

to post comments

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 2:12 UTC (Thu) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (2 responses)

The problems are:

- it is not a widely agreed upon change
- it makes the system markedly worse according to the inspectability axis

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 16:54 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

Please...

Major distributions have adopted/are considering it (Fedora, Debian, OpenSUSE at least)
"Inspectable" for whom? The maze of shell scripts legated by sysvinit isn't exactly transparent... Sure, systemd does get some using to, but from my (rabid Fedora fan, rawhide follower; and thus user for some time now) perspective it's much better than what came before; plus is promises to really handle dependencies, not just "(try to) start this after that one on boot, and hope for the best" ordering.

Introducing /run

Posted Apr 1, 2011 3:57 UTC (Fri) by motk (subscriber, #51120) [Link]

O_o ~= my face when tangled knots of SYSV shell are described as 'inspectable', ignoring the rampant emergent complexity and entropy therein.