FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-25-2012, 02:03 PM
Patrick Lauer
 
Default RFC: OpenRC as init system for Arch

Greetings,

in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
- the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job done, but it's not superawesome.
There's things like init script dependencies that would be nice to have, but then it's about the smallest of all init systems around.

On the other hand systemd is just Not The
Unix Way, it consolidates everything into one huge process and forces
some impossible dependencies (dbus? udev? on my server?! and you expect
a linux 3.0+ kernel? waaah!). But "everyone else" is moving to systemd,
so where does that leave us? (One might notice that "everyone else" is
just Fedora/RHEL at the moment, with (open)SuSE tagging along, and most
others still not committed to a migration yet)

As an alternative to the One Process For Everything I'd like to ask you to evalute OpenRC as an init system for Arch Linux.

While Gentoo is by far the largest user it's definitely not the only one
- there are the direct derivatives (Sabayon, pentoo, funtoo,
sysrescuecd, tinhat, ...) and some "foreign" users (Alpine, a debian
derivative, uses OpenRC)

What we offer you is a modern, slim, userfriendly init system with
minimal dependencies. All you need is a C99 compiler and a posix sh!
The list of features is long and tedious (see
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/OpenRC ), but the critical bits are:

* portable - we have it running on Linux, *BSD, and there's no reason
why it should fail on other unixoid platforms
* dependency-based init scripts - no need to manually figure out the
startup order, something like "before apache, after logger" is all you
need to specify
* small footprint - 10k LoC C99, ~3k LoC Posix SH out of the box (plus
your own init scripts, of course)
* friendly responsive upstream (let's figure out how we can cooperate, eh?)
* boring - deterministic reproducable bootup, including interactive mode
and verbose debug output

For a long time we haven't done any active advertising, but OpenRC is
now about 5 years old, and it is a drop-in replacement for our previous
"baselayout" init system (which was started over a decade ago). We don't
try to take over the world, we just create the best solution for our
needs. And those go all the way from embedded systems (where you can use
busybox for all the shell tools) to servers (minimal deps! No mandatory
udev or dbus!) and desktops (including optional splash screen eyecandy
and whatever makes you happy).

There's pretty good support for advanced usage like SELinux, built-in
support for ulimit and cgroups to do per-service resource limits, and it
even comes with a friendly license (although some might say that a
2-clause BSD license it too friendly and promiscuous). And as a random
bonus feature you get stupid-fast bootup - We've seen <5sec from
bootloader handover to login prompt (depending on hardware and amount of
services started, of course) and <5sec for rebooting a kvm guest.

Should you decide to switch (or just evaluate if switching is possible /
makes sense) you'll get full support from us in migrating init scripts
and figuring out all the nontrivial changes. Just visit us on IRC (
#openrc on irc.freenode.net), send us a mail ( openrc@gentoo.org ) or
meet us for a beer or two.

Thanks for your consideration,

Patrick Lauer

Gentoo Developer, OpenRC co-maintainer
 
Old 04-25-2012, 02:13 PM
Kaiting Chen
 
Default RFC: OpenRC as init system for Arch

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job
> done, but it's not superawesome.
> There's things like init script dependencies that would be nice to have,
> but then it's about the smallest of all init systems around.
>
> On the other hand systemd is just Not The
> Unix Way, it consolidates everything into one huge process and forces
> some impossible dependencies (dbus? udev? on my server?! and you expect
> a linux 3.0+ kernel? waaah!). But "everyone else" is moving to systemd,
> so where does that leave us? (One might notice that "everyone else" is
> just Fedora/RHEL at the moment, with (open)SuSE tagging along, and most
> others still not committed to a migration yet)
>
> As an alternative to the One Process For Everything I'd like to ask you to
> evalute OpenRC as an init system for Arch Linux.
>
> While Gentoo is by far the largest user it's definitely not the only one
> - there are the direct derivatives (Sabayon, pentoo, funtoo,
> sysrescuecd, tinhat, ...) and some "foreign" users (Alpine, a debian
> derivative, uses OpenRC)
>
> What we offer you is a modern, slim, userfriendly init system with
> minimal dependencies. All you need is a C99 compiler and a posix sh!
> The list of features is long and tedious (see
> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/OpenRC ), but the critical bits are:
>
> * portable - we have it running on Linux, *BSD, and there's no reason
> why it should fail on other unixoid platforms
> * dependency-based init scripts - no need to manually figure out the
> startup order, something like "before apache, after logger" is all you
> need to specify
> * small footprint - 10k LoC C99, ~3k LoC Posix SH out of the box (plus
> your own init scripts, of course)
> * friendly responsive upstream (let's figure out how we can cooperate, eh?)
> * boring - deterministic reproducable bootup, including interactive mode
> and verbose debug output
>
> For a long time we haven't done any active advertising, but OpenRC is
> now about 5 years old, and it is a drop-in replacement for our previous
> "baselayout" init system (which was started over a decade ago). We don't
> try to take over the world, we just create the best solution for our
> needs. And those go all the way from embedded systems (where you can use
> busybox for all the shell tools) to servers (minimal deps! No mandatory
> udev or dbus!) and desktops (including optional splash screen eyecandy
> and whatever makes you happy).
>
> There's pretty good support for advanced usage like SELinux, built-in
> support for ulimit and cgroups to do per-service resource limits, and it
> even comes with a friendly license (although some might say that a
> 2-clause BSD license it too friendly and promiscuous). And as a random
> bonus feature you get stupid-fast bootup - We've seen <5sec from
> bootloader handover to login prompt (depending on hardware and amount of
> services started, of course) and <5sec for rebooting a kvm guest.
>
> Should you decide to switch (or just evaluate if switching is possible /
> makes sense) you'll get full support from us in migrating init scripts
> and figuring out all the nontrivial changes. Just visit us on IRC (
> #openrc on irc.freenode.net), send us a mail ( openrc@gentoo.org ) or
> meet us for a beer or two.
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
>
> Patrick Lauer
>
> Gentoo Developer, OpenRC co-maintainer
>

Just want to point out that on my server I've disabled all udev in the init
scripts. It took only a couple of minutes to hack. --Kaiting.

--
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
 
Old 04-25-2012, 02:19 PM
Nicholas MIller
 
Default RFC: OpenRC as init system for Arch

sounds better than systemd to me
On Apr 25, 2012 9:03 AM, "Patrick Lauer" <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job
done, but it's not superawesome.
> There's things like init script dependencies that would be nice to have,
but then it's about the smallest of all init systems around.
>
> On the other hand systemd is just Not The
> Unix Way, it consolidates everything into one huge process and forces
> some impossible dependencies (dbus? udev? on my server?! and you expect
> a linux 3.0+ kernel? waaah!). But "everyone else" is moving to systemd,
> so where does that leave us? (One might notice that "everyone else" is
> just Fedora/RHEL at the moment, with (open)SuSE tagging along, and most
> others still not committed to a migration yet)
>
> As an alternative to the One Process For Everything I'd like to ask you
to evalute OpenRC as an init system for Arch Linux.
>
> While Gentoo is by far the largest user it's definitely not the only one
> - there are the direct derivatives (Sabayon, pentoo, funtoo,
> sysrescuecd, tinhat, ...) and some "foreign" users (Alpine, a debian
> derivative, uses OpenRC)
>
> What we offer you is a modern, slim, userfriendly init system with
> minimal dependencies. All you need is a C99 compiler and a posix sh!
> The list of features is long and tedious (see
> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/OpenRC ), but the critical bits are:
>
> * portable - we have it running on Linux, *BSD, and there's no reason
> why it should fail on other unixoid platforms
> * dependency-based init scripts - no need to manually figure out the
> startup order, something like "before apache, after logger" is all you
> need to specify
> * small footprint - 10k LoC C99, ~3k LoC Posix SH out of the box (plus
> your own init scripts, of course)
> * friendly responsive upstream (let's figure out how we can cooperate,
eh?)
> * boring - deterministic reproducable bootup, including interactive mode
> and verbose debug output
>
> For a long time we haven't done any active advertising, but OpenRC is
> now about 5 years old, and it is a drop-in replacement for our previous
> "baselayout" init system (which was started over a decade ago). We don't
> try to take over the world, we just create the best solution for our
> needs. And those go all the way from embedded systems (where you can use
> busybox for all the shell tools) to servers (minimal deps! No mandatory
> udev or dbus!) and desktops (including optional splash screen eyecandy
> and whatever makes you happy).
>
> There's pretty good support for advanced usage like SELinux, built-in
> support for ulimit and cgroups to do per-service resource limits, and it
> even comes with a friendly license (although some might say that a
> 2-clause BSD license it too friendly and promiscuous). And as a random
> bonus feature you get stupid-fast bootup - We've seen <5sec from
> bootloader handover to login prompt (depending on hardware and amount of
> services started, of course) and <5sec for rebooting a kvm guest.
>
> Should you decide to switch (or just evaluate if switching is possible /
> makes sense) you'll get full support from us in migrating init scripts
> and figuring out all the nontrivial changes. Just visit us on IRC (
> #openrc on irc.freenode.net), send us a mail ( openrc@gentoo.org ) or
> meet us for a beer or two.
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
>
> Patrick Lauer
>
> Gentoo Developer, OpenRC co-maintainer
>
>
 
Old 04-25-2012, 02:28 PM
Hector Martinez-Seara
 
Default RFC: OpenRC as init system for Arch

+1

On 25 April 2012 17:19, Nicholas MIller <nick.kyky@gmail.com> wrote:
> sounds better than *systemd to me
> On Apr 25, 2012 9:03 AM, "Patrick Lauer" <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
>> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
>> - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job
> done, but it's not superawesome.
>> There's things like init script dependencies that would be nice to have,
> but then it's about the smallest of all init systems around.
>>
>> On the other hand systemd is just Not The
>> Unix Way, it consolidates everything into one huge process and forces
>> some impossible dependencies (dbus? udev? on my server?! and you expect
>> a linux 3.0+ kernel? waaah!). But "everyone else" is moving to systemd,
>> so where does that leave us? (One might notice that "everyone else" is
>> just Fedora/RHEL at the moment, with (open)SuSE tagging along, and most
>> others still not committed to a migration yet)
>>
>> As an alternative to the One Process For Everything I'd like to ask you
> to evalute OpenRC as an init system for Arch Linux.
>>
>> While Gentoo is by far the largest user it's definitely not the only one
>> - there are the direct derivatives (Sabayon, pentoo, funtoo,
>> sysrescuecd, tinhat, ...) and some "foreign" users (Alpine, a debian
>> derivative, uses OpenRC)
>>
>> What we offer you is a modern, slim, userfriendly init system with
>> minimal dependencies. All you need is a C99 compiler and a posix sh!
>> The list of features is long and tedious (see
>> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/OpenRC ), but the critical bits are:
>>
>> * portable - we have it running on Linux, *BSD, and there's no reason
>> why it should fail on other unixoid platforms
>> * dependency-based init scripts - no need to manually figure out the
>> startup order, something like "before apache, after logger" is all you
>> need to specify
>> * small footprint - 10k LoC C99, ~3k LoC Posix SH out of the box (plus
>> your own init scripts, of course)
>> * friendly responsive upstream (let's figure out how we can cooperate,
> eh?)
>> * boring - deterministic reproducable bootup, including interactive mode
>> and verbose debug output
>>
>> For a long time we haven't done any active advertising, but OpenRC is
>> now about 5 years old, and it is a drop-in replacement for our previous
>> "baselayout" init system (which was started over a decade ago). We don't
>> try to take over the world, we just create the best solution for our
>> needs. And those go all the way from embedded systems (where you can use
>> busybox for all the shell tools) to servers (minimal deps! No mandatory
>> udev or dbus!) and desktops (including optional splash screen eyecandy
>> and whatever makes you happy).
>>
>> There's pretty good support for advanced usage like SELinux, built-in
>> support for ulimit and cgroups to do per-service resource limits, and it
>> even comes with a friendly license (although some might say that a
>> 2-clause BSD license it too friendly and promiscuous). And as a random
>> bonus feature you get stupid-fast bootup - We've seen <5sec from
>> bootloader handover to login prompt (depending on hardware and amount of
>> services started, of course) and <5sec for rebooting a kvm guest.
>>
>> Should you decide to switch (or just evaluate if switching is possible /
>> makes sense) you'll get full support from us in migrating init scripts
>> and figuring out all the nontrivial changes. Just visit us on IRC (
>> #openrc on irc.freenode.net), send us a mail ( openrc@gentoo.org ) or
>> meet us for a beer or two.
>>
>> Thanks for your consideration,
>>
>> Patrick Lauer
>>
>> Gentoo Developer, OpenRC co-maintainer
>>
>>



--
Hector Martínez-Seara Monné
mail: hseara@gmail.com
Tel: +34656271145
Tel: +358442709253
 
Old 04-25-2012, 03:25 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default RFC: OpenRC as init system for Arch

Hi Patrick,

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job done, but it's not superawesome.
> There's things like init script dependencies that would be nice to have, but then it's about the smallest of all init systems around.

While dependencies (done in the right way) might have been nice to
have, I don't see this as a major shortcoming of our current system,
and if we are to change away from initscripts the replacement would
have to provide significantly better benefits than that, in my humble
opinion.

> On the other hand systemd is just Not The
> Unix Way, it consolidates everything into one huge process

The systemd daemon is bigger than sysvinit's init and it does more.
However, you make it sound like all the extra featuers of systmed are
implemented in the daemon itself, and this is obviously not the case.
Almost all of the real work during boot is not done in PID1, but in
helper programs (/usr/lib/systemd/systemd-*).

> and forces
> some impossible dependencies (dbus? udev? on my server?! and you expect
> a linux 3.0+ kernel? waaah!).

Are you sure systemd does not work without dbus/udev running or with
older kernels? I have had no reason to test this, but from my
knowledge of the code it should work just fine (obviously you'll lose
the features provided by whatever components you remove). That said,
it is not clear to my what benefit you would hope to get from
excluding tiny daemons such as dbus and udev.

> As an alternative to the One Process For Everything I'd like to ask you to evalute OpenRC as an init system for Arch Linux.

This is a gross misrepresentation. If you want, you could criticise
that the systemd project encompasses many components, but the systemd
process itself is pretty minimal (IMHO).

> While Gentoo is by far the largest user it's definitely not the only one
> - there are the direct derivatives (Sabayon, pentoo, funtoo,
> sysrescuecd, tinhat, ...) and some "foreign" users (Alpine, a debian
> derivative, uses OpenRC)

IMHO, a nice goal would be to increase cross-distro collaboration. How
well are the different major distributions represented in your
contributor base? I think a strong point of systemd is that they have
active contributors from pretty much all major distros (including
gentoo and arch, but possibly with the exception of ubuntu, I'm not
sure).

> * portable - we have it running on Linux, *BSD, and there's no reason
> why it should fail on other unixoid platforms

This is clearly not relevant to Arch Linux.

> * dependency-based init scripts - no need to manually figure out the
> startup order, something like "before apache, after logger" is all you
> need to specify

As the current initscripts maintainer, I have so far not seen any
requests for this feature, though I'm sure it would be nice to have.

> * small footprint - 10k LoC C99, ~3k LoC Posix SH out of the box (plus
> your own init scripts, of course)

+ bash itself (which provides our /bin/sh).

> * friendly responsive upstream (let's figure out how we can cooperate, eh?)

This is nice (and is also very much true of systemd).

> * boring - deterministic reproducable bootup, including interactive mode
> and verbose debug output

How can you be both parallelisable and deterministic?

> For a long time we haven't done any active advertising, but OpenRC is
> now about 5 years old, and it is a drop-in replacement for our previous
> "baselayout" init system (which was started over a decade ago). We don't
> try to take over the world, we just create the best solution for our
> needs. And those go all the way from embedded systems (where you can use
> busybox for all the shell tools) to servers (minimal deps! No mandatory
> udev or dbus!) and desktops (including optional splash screen eyecandy
> and whatever makes you happy).
>
> There's pretty good support for advanced usage like SELinux, built-in
> support for ulimit and cgroups to do per-service resource limits, and it
> even comes with a friendly license (although some might say that a
> 2-clause BSD license it too friendly and promiscuous). And as a random
> bonus feature you get stupid-fast bootup - We've seen <5sec from
> bootloader handover to login prompt (depending on hardware and amount of
> services started, of course) and <5sec for rebooting a kvm guest.

If someone would be willing to evaluate and package openrc so we could
all make an informed decision, I think that would be very useful. That
said, my immediate impression is that it is not a great improvement
over initscripts, and its professed benefits over systemd seem based
on misconceptions (the "openrc bonus features" table on the webpage
contains serious errors about systemd) or do not apply to Arch, so I
will not be taking this on myself.

I strongly believe that should we move away from intscripts it needs
to be to an event-driven system (such as systemd or upstart) and it
was not clear from the webpage that OpenRC provides this.

Cheers,

Tom
 
Old 04-25-2012, 03:54 PM
Rashif Ray Rahman
 
Default RFC: OpenRC as init system for Arch

On 25 April 2012 23:25, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:

> I strongly believe that should we move away from intscripts it needs
> to be to an event-driven system (such as systemd or upstart) and it
> was not clear from the webpage that OpenRC provides this.
>

I concur.

Although the current init works for me and won't encourage me to shift to
things like systemd anytime soon, efforts towards introducing alternatives
would have to be justified by how much more they're able to bring to the
table. Simply being different or offering a few bonuses won't be enough,
IMO. Systemd is something dynamic and is what fits that ideal model, a
model which satisfies the needs of the present and hopefully the future.

Otherwise, I like my init as simple as it currently is. Dependency is never
a problem as it's very little work to manually ensure they're met.


--
GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
 
Old 04-25-2012, 04:38 PM
Kaiting Chen
 
Default RFC: OpenRC as init system for Arch

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org>wrote:

> On 25 April 2012 23:25, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
>
> > I strongly believe that should we move away from intscripts it needs
> > to be to an event-driven system (such as systemd or upstart) and it
> > was not clear from the webpage that OpenRC provides this.
> >
>
> I concur.
>
> Although the current init works for me and won't encourage me to shift to
> things like systemd anytime soon, efforts towards introducing alternatives
> would have to be justified by how much more they're able to bring to the
> table. Simply being different or offering a few bonuses won't be enough,
> IMO. Systemd is something dynamic and is what fits that ideal model, a
> model which satisfies the needs of the present and hopefully the future.
>
> Otherwise, I like my init as simple as it currently is. Dependency is never
> a problem as it's very little work to manually ensure they're met.
>
>
> --
> GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
>

The problem I have with a systemd like init system is that it's way too
much overkill for a server. I like our current situation as we have an
extremely simple init system and users can drop in systemd if they so
choose. --Kaiting.

--
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
 
Old 04-25-2012, 05:57 PM
Leonid Isaev
 
Default RFC: OpenRC as init system for Arch

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:03:19 +0800
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job done,
> but it's not superawesome. There's things like init script dependencies that
> would be nice to have, but then it's about the smallest of all init systems
> around.
>
> [...]
>
> Patrick Lauer
>
> Gentoo Developer, OpenRC co-maintainer
>
>

Thanks for your explanation. However, I sense a confusion regarding an init
system and a boot process. AFAIU openrc still uses /sbin/init -- the
daemons/services are handled through a set of (ba)sh scripts. From what
I learn from systemd documentation, all services are handled by one daemon --
dependencies, tracking, etc. are a natural bonus, so to say. Although I also
dislike the idea of systemd-{journald,logind,...}, as long as those things are
implemented via modules, I don't think they are "bloat". So IMO the only
negative thing in arch's adoption of systemd is that rc.conf will have to go
away

--
Leonid Isaev
GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D
Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
 
Old 04-25-2012, 06:07 PM
Nicholas MIller
 
Default RFC: OpenRC as init system for Arch

On Apr 25, 2012 12:57 PM, "Leonid Isaev" <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:03:19 +0800
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
> > especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> > - the current Arch Linux init system is a bit minimal and gets the job
done,
> > but it's not superawesome. There's things like init script dependencies
that
> > would be nice to have, but then it's about the smallest of all init
systems
> > around.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Patrick Lauer
> >
> > Gentoo Developer, OpenRC co-maintainer
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for your explanation. However, I sense a confusion regarding an
init
> system and a boot process. AFAIU openrc still uses /sbin/init -- the
> daemons/services are handled through a set of (ba)sh scripts. From what
> I learn from systemd documentation, all services are handled by one
daemon --
> dependencies, tracking, etc. are a natural bonus, so to say. Although I
also
> dislike the idea of systemd-{journald,logind,...}, as long as those
things are
> implemented via modules, I don't think they are "bloat". So IMO the only
> negative thing in arch's adoption of systemd is that rc.conf will have to
go
> away
>
rc.conf is one big reason I use arch instead of gentoo...

> --
> Leonid Isaev
> GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D
> Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
 
Old 04-25-2012, 06:17 PM
Calvin Morrison
 
Default RFC: OpenRC as init system for Arch

On 04/25/2012 12:38 PM, Kaiting Chen wrote:

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Rashif Ray Rahman<schiv@archlinux.org>wrote:


On 25 April 2012 23:25, Tom Gundersen<teg@jklm.no> wrote:


I strongly believe that should we move away from intscripts it needs
to be to an event-driven system (such as systemd or upstart) and it
was not clear from the webpage that OpenRC provides this.



I concur.

Although the current init works for me and won't encourage me to shift to
things like systemd anytime soon, efforts towards introducing alternatives
would have to be justified by how much more they're able to bring to the
table. Simply being different or offering a few bonuses won't be enough,
IMO. Systemd is something dynamic and is what fits that ideal model, a
model which satisfies the needs of the present and hopefully the future.

Otherwise, I like my init as simple as it currently is. Dependency is never
a problem as it's very little work to manually ensure they're met.


--
GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1



The problem I have with a systemd like init system is that it's way too
much overkill for a server. I like our current situation as we have an
extremely simple init system and users can drop in systemd if they so
choose. --Kaiting.



+1

Arch follows the nice KISS principle and a bit of DIY. We should have
default a simple and sane system that works, and if anyone feels the
need to install some crazy new fangled type, they can go ahead.


OpenRC works well in Gentoo, i don't see why it would not work well here.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:02 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org