inignoct wrote:
] He has some good points. Any thoughts, nerds?

Not very compelling...

1. I don't find init confusing, if you do, you probably don't NEED to understand it. The run levels are as follows:
multi-user, GUI, shutdown, reboot, and maintenance
You have to have the last one. The second to last two could be collapsed into one, but its really no big deal. Mostly people use the system to switch between multi-user and GUI mode. As this guy is a gnome developer he probably doesn't understand why people would want to boot a system without a gui.

2. It doesn't have to be redesigned in order to allow it to be managed from the gui in an easy to understand way. You can translate between unix and layman.

3. I don't have a problem with X starting before the boot up, but its really not needed. Who cares what the boot sequence LOOKs like? Why not just cover it up with a graphic like MacOS and Windows do.

4. These scripts already have more then start/stop/restart exposed. You can define anything you want. He needs to be more specific about what he imagines.

5. Don't break unix such you have to run X in order to use things effectively. Apple did that, and its annoying as hell. The amount of work involved in creating a host alias is often more then its worth with their GUI tool.

RE: Seth Nickell on Replacing the Aging Init Procedure on Linux - OSNews.com