sysvinit replacement?

[Peter Arremann]

On Saturday 15 October 2005 14:49, Shane Stixrud wrote:
> Are you saying this is a fundamental problem with a SMF type management
> framework or just a implementation detail in the current SMF system?
I'm complaining about the current SMF implementation mostly. The porting will 
always be an issue if you introduce new technology but if the reward is worth 
it, it makes sense. 


> I never found the startup time issue that big of a deal, it is a bigger
> deal for desktops/hand helds than servers IMO.  I am more fond of the
> > service monitoring/event features than I am how quick it is. 
And that only works if your application supports it. And if you take only a 
small section of the market the way sun is doing it, getting people to port 
to the new setup is gonna be difficult. 



> > Other problems are that you're trading a well known, well debugged system
> > against something noone knows and that has virtually no tools to
> > troubleshoot at the moment. You also make it much harder for anyone to
> > port software to your Linux flavor.
>
> This is true every time major change occurs, it is valid consideration
> though.
That's why its important that what you're doing is really really worth it 
(like the SYSV package changes to support zones) and not something half baked 
like SMF.

Peter.