On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 22:38:50 +0000
Simon Hobson <linux@???> wrote:

> I'd argue that the sysvinit method of starting things in order and
> waiting for them to complete is "good enough" for most people for
> most of the time - and has the advantage of deterministic (subject to
> external influences such as network availability) service start
> order, and being "fixable" when it does go wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree. The reason I don't like sysvinit has nothing to
do with consecutive starting: It's just the whole 31_myservice junk and
the fact that it doesn't easily respawn.

Oppositely, my love for daemontools-inspired inits like Runit has
nothing to do with parallel or pseudo parallel starts: It's all about
its simplicity. I once went so far as to write a series of shellscripts,
called LittKit, that imposed order on daemontools-encore's startup.

By the way, anyone who likes consecutive, ordered starting would love
Epoch Init. And it boots up pretty darn fast, too.

SteveT

Steve Litt
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28