Parallelizing bootscripts [was: Make bootscripts more POSIX compliant]

Ag. Hatzimanikas a.hatzim at gmail.com
Wed Feb 21 00:20:13 PST 2007


On Tue, Feb 20, at 01:55 Dan Nicholson wrote:
> 
> The overhead is the same reason why people are adamant about coding in
> C after all these years despite the availability of more powerful and
> intuitive languages.
> 

Hmm...I don't know.As someone said/wrote today...with the current computer specs,
nobody (users and programmers) really cares in these days,about speed and footprint,
about size and sharing,etc...
It's a bad practice -if you ask me- and anything we can do to show that *We Care*,
it really worths the effort.

So,Dan,I applaud your efforts and anyone else that cares and contributes with ideas/patches
about speeding the booting process,whatever that means -
Parallelizing the bootscripts? - 
Using dash instead of bash? - 
Using an alternative init system? Upstart?

I would like to see some more patches/commits on this,but the question is where?
In the development branch?I don't think so.

The way I see it,the dev branch is too stable to start experiments with it.
Even in 4.{2,3} gcc releases,there are not really so many changes that will break it.

As it has been proposed in the past,a permanent experiment branch,it would help us a lot 
to speed and stabilize the development process,in nearly every aspect,before we start
merge some serious changes such those.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list