Chuck Stickelman wrote: >> Someday I need to figure out just how Ubuntu has moved away from init. >> Upstart is the name. It's supposed to be faster, more flexible, robust. >> Can't say that it's been any of those on this machine. >> >> > Wow! Doing away with init is a big deal! It should be done as an > "init=" entry at the boot loader. Anything other than that would force > a unique kernel build which should be avoided and condemned at all costs. > > I'm not sure how much faster init should be... It's a pretty > light-weight program. Also, how much more flexible does an initial > program have to be? I'm not seeing the advantage. I think this could > be just one more reason why Ubuntu should be avoided... > Using upstart doesn't force you to use a certain kernel. It is compatible with init and its boot parameters for the most part. I believe that I was still using "old world" ideas to try and recover more modern day issues. The busybox shell if certainly part of initramfs. That at least I understand and have worked with many times. The real frustration was not landing in a *real* single user mode where I could just fix it and not have to manually bring up all the devices by hand. If I wanted that, Solaris with Veritas or even their own RAID could give me that. :) This could be a good meeting topic as I've seen reference to upstart in Debian testing and Fedora. Surely it's in use elsewhere. -- Mike http://www.bellyacresoh.com To unsubscribe send to ncolug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field.