Haiku OS Working On A Systemd-Inspired Boot Daemon

[nasyt]

Woaw, so FreeBSD has now turned 180 degrees and admitted that shell base init systems are bullshit and that systemd-like inits are the future. Too bad for them cause launchd is out of date crap and is not even in BSD control. BSDs are still backward in their thinking and coding. Linux is still owns their asses.

Not to say, that runit is the best init scheme while systemd is bullshit. In place of shellscripts there could be ruby or a DSL of it, so everything is still script based.

Systemd BTW emerged after launchd, so launchd pioneered the concept.

[SystemCrasher]

Systemd emerged after upstart and at least on Linux side it was Mark Shuttleworth to blame for starting this commotion. There was heck a lot of yelling on how upstart sucks, etc. Then systemd appeared and all these insane haters turned 180 degrees and started to yell on systemd instead, admitting something like "upstart isnt that bad, let's beat systemd instead!". LOL. Just LOL. Eagerly awaiting for systemd replacement - wouldn't it be fun to learn "systemd isn't that bad, let's beat %s instead"?

[endman]

SystemCrasher is right on. The biggest problem with all BSD projects is the project management and severe mental illness of their project members. I would also add that near-religious dogma and political corruption also contribute greatly to the pathetic state of the BSDs particularly with OpenBSD.

But I wanted to dedicate this post to reply to what our mindless BSD fanboy ?Luke_Wolf? said about BSD init which is blatantly wrong on his part.

It's funny that you mention the init system, because BSDInit is vastly superior to SysV style init,

No it?s not.

SysV init was and is revolutionary in comparison to BSD init. SysV was designed such that there is one startup script per daemon or service in /etc/init.d/. This made SysV more modular and fault tolerant then the BSD init. It also made it possible to achieve parallel booting to some extent. More importantly, if you install an extra daemon, you only have to place a new script into /etc/init.d/. Something you couldn?t do with BSD init before NetBSD 1.5. BSD init by comparison solely relies on /etc/rc for the boot process and if need to and a daemon, you have to manually edit /etc/rc and if you do it wrongly, your system can?t boot, end of story. Essentially, SysV?s design had considerations for the fact that you need to install third party services on your system. BSD init had no such considerations until 20 years later with the implementation of /etc/rc.d/ in NetBSD. This proves SystemCrasher?s statement correct regarding the fact that BSD fks willingly ignore real-world use cases and instead focus on unrealistic ones. It turns out they have been doing this since Bill Joy ripped off UNIX to create 1BSD.

BSD init?s concept is as old as UNIX itself. In fact, it?s not BSD init, it?s UNIX v1 init. BSD branched off from UNIX before SysIII and SysV and thus still had this init system. Because the BSD morons at Berkeley didn?t know how to create a new init system or recognized that SysV was far superior, they stuck with this out dated and useless init until the release of /etc/rc.d in NetBSD 1.5 when they saw that Linux with SysV init was raping asses to completion in usage share. Unfortunately, BSD fks have no clue about init systems and rc.d turned out to be a half-ass solution. Despite the fact that there are modular scripts in /etc/rc.d/, it is still /etc/rc that is being executed and if a script in /etc/rc.d/ is broken, the boot process hangs or the whole piece of shit drops to single user mode. It?s still a piece of crap init system so much so that Jordan Hubbard tried to get launchd into FreeBSD but this nutcase will fail due to BSD?s stupidity with init systems. Launchd will be implemented inot FreeBSD in such a way that it?ll make things worse for users if there are any.

obviously a service manager like systemd, or launchd is better,

Whoa! That?s an improvement Luke_Wolf, at least know you confessed that systmed is superior to BSD. But you still have a lot to improve on to because sane and normal.

but BSD didn't get this one wrong.

No, BSD got init more wrong than others and they are notorious for this. OpenBSD is the worse of the worse. I?ve looked at their /etc/rc file and it turns out they couldn?t even make the transition from rc to rc.d and all they are left with is an incest between rc and rc.d.

BSD's main problem is really that of manpower.

Wrong, repeat after me:

Its shit project management and politics
Its shit project management and politics
Its shit project management and politics
Its shit project management and politics
Its shit project management and politics
Its shit project management and politics
Its shit project management and politics

Good, now that?s the truth