From: not.my.real@email.address   
      
   Sylvain Robitaille wrote:   
      
   > On 2024-04-02, Auric__ wrote:   
   >   
   >> I read an article about it a few years ago and I remember thinking,   
   >> "That actually sounds like a pretty good idea..."   
   >   
   > (purposely trimmed ...)   
   >   
   > Oh, that much it is, from an academic standpoint.  There are certainly   
   > arguments in favour of it, but not in environments that depend on a   
   > certain stability of the operating system.   
   >   
   > I probably read the same article (or certainly one like it) more   
   > than a few years ago, and at the start was thinking "this will be an   
   > interesting read", then afterwards dismayed because I was pretty sure   
   > that it was trying to solve issues that aren't really problems.   
      
   My main issue involves the fact that there's essentially a single point of   
   failure for basically the entire system. See also: the original subject of   
   this thread.   
      
   > There's someone posting to aols from time to time about an initd   
   > replacement that they're working on, and I do find myself interested   
   > in know about it, and that development is progressing, but not at all   
   > in using it.  This just strikes me as the sort of thing that folks   
   > should knowingly adopt, on a case-by-case basis, not something that   
   > should be foisted on folks because the operating system packager   
   > (with more bug-for-bug derivatives than true alternatives) decides   
   > that everyone should use it.   
      
   I'll be honest, I'm vaguely interested, but I don't have the inclination to   
   actually make any changes/customizations to my system. As with lilo (and a   
   great many other things) what I have now works for me, why bother changing?   
      
   --   
   - You did that on purpose!   
   - Of course I did. I hate you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)