[ale] Systemd and cygwin

[Solomon Peachy]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:18:15AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> When used correctly, a Turing complete init configuration facility is an
> asset, not a liability. We're all sorry about sysvinit/LSB init

You hit the nail on the head there; "when used correctly."

Unfortunately, after doing this for twenty years, I'm fairly convinced 
that this is just a rhetorical postulation.

> * Systemd will force per-seat billing: Propaganda

Yep.
 
> * Systemd is better than sysvinit: Propaganda

No; it is *vastly, vastly* better than sysvinit under just about
every possible metric.  

(Let's be honest, sysvinit is so awful that the classic "sysv init 
scripts" were created to work around sysvinit's deficiencies!)

Now whether or not one cares about those improvements is another matter 
entirely.

> * Systemd saves the 1K/process doublefork penalty: Propaganda

It's not the code size so much as doing it correctly in one place.

(Personally, I took advantage of systemd's support for such thigs to 
 enable some daemons written in PHP (seriously) to work.  The 
 alternative would have been to write a C wrapper myself and exec() the PHP 
 interpreter afterwards.  Why reinvent the wheel yet again?)

> * The choice of init system is based on use case, and there's no
>   one-size-fits-all init system that works for everybody: The stone
>   truth.

I'd agree with that.

 - Solomon
-- 
Solomon Peachy        		       pizza at shaftnet dot org
Delray Beach, FL                          ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 155 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20151118/8d767b3f/attachment.sig>