> Central repositories are a dangerous thing. A great win for modularity? I'm not so sure - the bigger the repository the less replaceable it is at the end of t

> Central repositories are a dangerous thing. A great win for modularity? I'm not so sure - the bigger the repository the less replaceable it is at the end of the day. As long as the repository has a well-defined API then that can be replaced just as easily as any other single piece, right? > I'm not really sure why skarnet makes this argument anyway, since (x)inetd or its replacements also work as a "central repository" of sockets for socket activated services. Same for me on that one. > He's not talking about parallel boot, he is talking about what advantages socket activation (supposedly) brings to the table while parallel booting. :) Is this really all that different? My understanding was that the point of socket activation was that you'd no longer need to explicitly order when services would start.