[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120610152734.GI163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:27:34 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Vision for new platform
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 05:17:47PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> I think a lot depends on how we want to use our system. If its user
> desktop, a solution such as systemd are very comfortable. If we want
Somehow I suspect that running systemd creates a situation where init
(and thus the whole system) crashes on low memory. This is not
appropriate behavior for ANY system, even if it is a user-facing
desktop system. Think too of things like phones; you don't want to be
rebooting your phone and unable to receive a phone call because some
crappy app is consuming all your memory...
> to have a 'critical' system (RTOS/security) then it's better to keep
> independent init as simple process.
I believe it's a mistake to consider robustness a requirement that
only applies to RTOS and similar.
With that said, I don't think we need to be in the business of saying
"To be system X you must use tools Y and Z!"; instead, we should
identify the tools necessary to make a robust and lightweight system,
document these choices, and show it in action. There's no reason to
preclude somebody who wants to crappify the system from using systemd,
dbus, etc. but the tools we select (and any new ones we write) should
avoid depending on broken stuff.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
