RFC: a new init system for Arch

Question

hi guys, i've been thinking about this for a while, especially since after seeing what a real optimized init system can do for a distro (ala Annvix). Recently, somebody also suggested the use of upstart (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 59#p238859), and i've been thinking that perhaps it's time to put forth this suggestion to the community, and get the devs in on this (discussion) as well.
What do u guys think of replacing and moving from the current BSD-init style (it's great, but there's more stuff out there!!!) to a better, "totally optimized", "rad" (excuse the slang, also known as "awesome") init system?
Here are my thoughts for the 2 that i've investigated...
1. Upstart (http://upstart.ubuntu.com/index.html)
Advantages:
- active, maintained code
- the idea of "events" is natural, intuitive, and as a model, fits the real world situation ("optimizing for the bootup process") very nicely
  (although one could also argue that u could just as well call your events "dependencies" ala initng, if u dig deeper, u'll see that it's more than just that)
Disadvantages:
- looks set to become much more than just a simple 'init' replacement (see for eg., http://upstart.ubuntu.com/wiki/ComplexEventConfig [via https://launchpad.net/upstart from "Latest proposed features" section]), and violate the KISS principle of Arch??? (or is this still considered "simple enough"???):
    -> looks set to replace cron, atd, and anacron, .... (http://upstart.ubuntu.com/faq.html#replace-cron)
    -> looks set to almost (or could potentially become) a "total event system for Linux" (see the last 3 questions of the faq)
2. Runit (http://smarden.org/runit/)
Advantages:
- fits the KISS idea most definitely
- can be integrated very nicely with its 'supervise-like' replacements to help supervise ur services
- if u're a djb fan, u'll find urself going "woohoo!!!" You'll get the very same advantages that u get with djb's supervise system...
Disadvantages:
- if u're not a djb fan, u'll find urself going ....
Your comments and ideas, folks?

Answer 1

I don't see how complexity gonna improve on that.
It won't. In fact it'll actually make it slower, more than likely. People refuse to understand this.
If ask me, being able to just list your daemons in any order and have them work (and load in the proper order as quickly as possible) without having to look-up what each damon might possibly require (and keep track of changes in those requirements with new versions) follows KISS a lot more than having to deal with it all to order your daemons list (and lossing the option to background daemons that are required for other ones).
Perhaps you don't understand the shade of meaning that Arch uses when it says "Simple". Simple does NOT mean that something is "easy", it means it isn't complicated and over-complex. Ever heard of DOS's autoexec.bat? It was a stinkin' batch file and it ran everything you typed into it in the order you typed into it. The reason why I mention this is not because I want to adopt DOS's init system, but instead because I wanted to show you the pinnacle of simplicity. Was it easy to use? Most of the time. But DOS also had issues of TSR's and services, etc. that depend on other services. I'd like for you to point out a simpler system than autoexec.bat that is actually in mainstream use. See? Simple does NOT equal easy.
However, I'd like to mention what my Jr. High principal always told us: "Anything is easy if you know how to do it." I actually find Arch's init system to be the EASIEST system out there. I know EXACTLY what it is doing at all times. I tried to grok Ubuntu's system and I found myself having to read a bunch of stuff from different sources to make sense of it. Is that easy? No. Not for me. Simple IS easy if you throw out your Windows conditioning that everything should be done for you and that you can't think for yourself. You say we should be able to make a list of services and they should all start in the order Arch thinks they should. I on the other hand say that if I want x to start before y, then x BETTER start before y. You see, I'M the user. I'm not just there to share the experience. My computer is a tool and I want it to do exactly what I say.
Hell, I bet you spent more time writing this post than a new init system will save you in your lifetime. The Linux kernel takes longer to start on my machine than anything else (and I'm connected via WiFi on a buggy and slow as hell driver and through DHCP on top of that). I already said one thing that may give you a little boost, which is caching (which may actually slow you down due to overhead). You can also try suspending to disk (aka hibernating) instead of just shutting down.
What do u guys think of replacing and moving from the current BSD-init style (it's great, but there's more stuff out there!!!) to a better, "totally optimized", "rad" (excuse the slang, also known as "awesome") init system?
Explain to me everything you know about the BSD init style. I'm curious.
Last edited by deficite (2007-04-05 02:51:51)