Replacing rc(8) (Was: FreeBSD Boot Times)

[Doug Barton]

I was working on a reply along similar lines, but instead I'll say that
i agree 100% with what Mark said, and thanks to him for saving me a lot
of time. :)

Richard, with all that said if you still are interested in specs for a
test program, I'm still willing to help with that. Just let me know.

Doug


On 06/20/2012 12:39 AM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:45:13PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> That is already done in Gentoo FreeBSD, or do you want me to do the
>> work for you to integrate OpenRC in the base system?
> 
> We want you to do the work to prove that it is an improvement.  Otherwise
> it's "just another claim."
> 
> You seem to be missing a couple of principles here, the most important
> of which is "first, do no harm."  FreeBSD has as one of its underlying
> principles not to violate POLA (Principle Of Least Astonishment.)  The
> corollary is that we don't replace code unless we're convinced (not just
> told) that the replacement is a better solution.
> 
> If this makes FreeBSD more conservative than the way other OSes do
> things, so be it.
> 
> I'm not trying to be harsh here.  What I'm saying is that the burden
> of proof is on the person making the claims "it's better" to demonstrate
> that it's so.
> 
> Otherwise, there are a zillion PRs with patches already in the database
> for committers to pick up and work on.
> 
>> I already have OpenRC in Gentoo FreeBSD. Taking the time to integrate
>> OpenRC into FreeBSD would be an inefficient use of my time. Not only
>> would I fail to gain any improvements on my systems, but I would divert
>> development time from things that do benefit me.
> 
> Then I expect the situation to remain unchanged.
> 
> fwiw, from previous discussions on FreeBSD boot time, ISTR that there
> are other places where more time is spent.  Some analysis to prove that
> indeed the rc subsystem is the dominant term would be a good starting
> place.
> 
> mcl
>