[nylug-talk] ubuntu looking to replace init

[Joseph M. Gaffney]

On Tuesday 12 September 2006 15:05, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > <snip unrelated stuffs>
>
> As I've come to learn the system the stuff about getty processes and login
> routines aren't unrelated.  They are the core function of init.
>
> Look at inittab.

"Unrelated stuffs" was a reference to broken documentation and other things 
that really aren't related to the discussion in any way, since there is no 
finished product with broken documentation to chat about.  Making it 
unrelated, and stuff.

> > > Do I want my computer to notice that I plugged in an ehternet jack and
> > > have it automatically turn on networking and mail?
> > >
> > > No...
> >
> > Nope, and thats not what this is for.  Upstart, when you turn on your
> > system, knows that you want to (or don't want to) connect to a network. 
> > Why? Because you've decided this, as a user, and its been saved to the
> > config.
>
> Whis is wrong with the flexible sh scripts?  I'll take a full programming
> API over a 'use for everything program' any day.

How is it a "use for everything" program?  Its an event driven system, user 
programmable.  You could have some flexible shell scripts, and set an event 
that starts them off.   If <hardware_service_or_other> is unavailable, your 
flexible shell script doesn't start, or changes the feature set.

> > Lets say
> > you want to.
> >
> > However, your cat5 has somehow slipped out of the jack, and you don't
> > have an active net connection.  Do you really need your system to wait
> > for an ip for 20 seconds, hidden behind a boot splash you never pay
> > attention to because it always Just Works?
>
> Umm - yeah.  If it slips out it is broken, right.  If it doesn't behave
> broken it is wasting my time with tea leaves trying to figure out why
> the silly doo hicky isn't doing what it is supposed to (again).

If it slips out, theres no connection.  Easily solved by plugging it in.  
Broken, if you fully read my statement, was if the card itself was somehow 
damaged.  How is it a "silly doo hicky" if it doesn't try getting an IP using 
a non-working network card? That *is* what it is supposed to do.

> > No, you don't want that.  You want your system to be
> > smart enough to know that there is no cat5 cable, so its not going to get
> > an ip address - the two are related.
>
> Among other issues, who in their right mind turns off the computer?

Laptop users.  People who conserve power.  College students.

> > Now, a cable is the nice one - you can
> > simply plug it in.  However, what if something is wrong with your network
> > card?  Is it necessary to wait, or wouldn't you like to get right into
> > the CLI or  your DE of choice to resolve the issue?
>
> No software can 'resolve' the issue when harware is broken. It can cover it
> up and prevent the useful syslog information which would tell me the kernel
> reporting that the hardware is misbehaving.

"Error: IP Configuration not started. Network connection not present." or some 
such.  Theres a problem with that?  How is it "covering" things up? 

> > Lets take it further.  Say you use a variety of servers, www, ftp,
> > whatever, specifically set up for use over a network.  Well, if it were
> > tied into Upstart, you wouldn't have to wait for each of them to load and
> > find there is no connection.
>
> Yes this was tried and largely, althouh not absolutely, disliked.  This was
> what inet (not init), the super dameon did and it was largely a security
> nightmare.

And again, you wouldn't *have* to tie them in.  Its also called an example.  
Want more? Go to the upstart site for better ones, and better explanations.  
From your comments I get the impression you haven't.

Firewire drives can be added randomly, PCMCIA cards the same, power 
consumption is an issue, USB, now wireless usb, flash media, so on - the 
traditional method, without any helper application, does not exactly serve 
these purposes well.  Should I change the run level every time I plug a 
device in?  Do I really *have* to create a script for something the init 
daemon used to be for, but is now changed because our hardware is becoming 
more versatile?

Not what you want? Fine, don't use it.  But also, please refrain from coming 
up with a reason against it without realizing what its for.  

> > Upstart could be much more simple and yet, much more intelligent than the
> > current situation.
>
> Computers are stupid.  People are intelligent.  Failure to understand this
> makes a LOT of bad software and stupid, disembolwed humans.

Computers are logic devices, they are neither stupid nor intelligent.  I also 
never compared them to humans.  Please, stop adding things that are off base, 
and way off the topic.

> > I would at least hold back until you've tried it before
> > condemning it, it may be better than you believe.
>
> Condemn is a strong word.  I can perfectly critisze the design goals before
> a single line of code is written.
>
> I have a little bit of expereince with this.
>
> :)
> :

Except from your comments, you don't seem to be aware of the design goals or 
the intent of the project.  You also don't seem to be aware that people have 
dynamic hardware configurations, and needs vary within a moments notice.

I have more than a bit of experience in that regard.

-Joseph M. Gaffney aka CuCullin