[Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd

[Mike Small]

Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux at gmail.com> writes:

> Can we agree that SysV Init is ancient, and is due for at least major
> reform, if not outright replacement ?

Nope. Unless you mean adapting OpenBSD's rc scripts as the major reform
or re-writing in (Tom Duff's) rc or scsh. I've expanded on why that
suits my preferences at length in my last email. I just don't see the
need for my own uses, though I never liked sysv as well as BSD's rc. If
others want something new, that's cool.

>
> While we can debate artistic design choices and complain about
> personalities, it seems we don't have a lot of choice: if RedHat and
> Ubuntu and Gentoo and Debian will all be shipping SystemD, only the
> most fringe distros will keep SysV init on pid 1 or find a third path.

I thought Gentoo was fully agnostic and making major efforts at allowing
non-systemd (runit?) to be possible. Debian's technical committee wants
to play at taking a similar line by saying patches for sysv init or
upstart should not be rejected, though it sounds like bullshit perhaps
or at least less than realistic.

I wouldn't call Slackware fringe. Maybe that's just me.


-- 
Mike Small
smallm at panix.com