3 ms·
LLVM is obviously not a daemon which is why having it as a daemon would be one point. Even that would have been more flexible, simple, and far less invasive and
by abysmallyideal 10y ago
LLVM is obviously not a daemon which is why having it as a daemon would be one point. Even that would have been more flexible, simple, and far less invasive and corruptive.
There was no mess of init scripts. The only mess introduced was through poor integration practices through the introduction of corporate induced timelines and requirements, who then introduced an even worse solution.
- xj9 10y agoI agree that we can do better than systemd, but what do you think LLVM does? How would it even fit into that role. Let's be specific, I want to understand where you are coming from.
- jakub_h 10y agoPerhaps something related to continuous optimization? I think Oberon experimented with that.
- startling 10y agoI'm confused about this too. Maybe they believe systemd was adopted for performance, and JITing bash would mitigate performance concerns? I really doubt that run-once startup scripts would benefit from JITing, though. And memory overhead might be a non-starter.