Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SysVinit 2.90 Released With Fixes & Better Support For Newer Compilers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    Am I the only one bothered (especially with systemd, but here too) by the "ctl" suffix short-hand for control? Seriously. It's CTRL on keyboards. initctrl sounds much better.
    I suspect they are doing it because there is already a "CTRL" key on keywords.

    I'm personally not bothered, I use tab-completion anwyay.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
      Because the only alternative is a horribly written, highly monolithic failure of a project created to replace it.
      Ah come on, OpenRC isn't so bad. You Systemd fanboys have no pity.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by lostdistance View Post
        Embedded systems.

        In my current job I use sysvinit to start a video decode application on an Intel Braswell Qseven module.
        Why not using busybox's light "init" instead? I don't think you need runlevels in embedded (which is the main difference, busybox's init does not support runlevels).

        Comment


        • #14
          systemd completely supports System V Init, if you want to use it. Pretty surprising isn't? because if you listen to systemd haters you would think that System V support was taken away. But you can quite happily start services by SystemV files just as you always have. Thats why all of this systemd hating nonsense is nonsense, systemd doesnt take away any functionality, it just adds on additional functionality. I find systemd to be much easier to use because of the declarative file format, there is much less wheel reinventing and results in easier to read files than bash code. The start up model is different, because its more powerful and allows you more flexibility to determine when a service to start based on prerequisites rather than just a sequence based start up. You can absolutely use a sequence based startup, but systemd allows you to configure it to start services on a much more precise set of conditions. People are just afraid of whats different, once you learn it, its worth it because it is much more powerful

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Candy View Post
            Why would anyone use this horribly written, highly monolithic artifact from bygone ages?

            Because people jumped to another horrible written, highly monolithic piece of software
            * Horribly written probably. Did you check ? Sysvinit is actually very small, so only its age will make it horrible. Maybe you're thinking about the individual service scripts ?
            * Bygone ages arguably, but it still has decades ahead of it.
            * Highly monolithic not at all, it's actually very modular and straightforward. Systemd in contrast is indeed very monotithic and aggregates many features that would benefit from being independent.

            Originally posted by unixfan2001 View Post
            I don't think there are that many OpenRC users out there.
            OpenRC, has a healthy userbase and development pace, thanks for your concern. In many ways OpenRC is "SysVinit done right", it's cleanly written, not monolithic, nice to use, and featureful. My impression is that while many SysVinit users migrated (reluctantly or not) to Systemd, most OpenRC users happily stayed in OpenRC land.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
              Because the only alternative is a horribly written, highly monolithic failure of a project created to replace it.
              There are good alternatives to sysvinit and systemd out there. OpenRC is often mentioned, runit is another, minit, daemontools... The nice thing about all of those except systemd is that they play fairly well together on a single system.

              Comment


              • #17
                Woohoo after 20+ years sysvinit finally documents its init control protocol. Now maybe so other init system lets just say openrc/systemd can implement it.

                There are a large number of still undocumented items in sysvinit.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by moltonel View Post
                  There are good alternatives to sysvinit and systemd out there. OpenRC is often mentioned, runit is another, minit, daemontools... The nice thing about all of those except systemd is that they play fairly well together on a single system.
                  I was speaking in regards the usual sysvinit vs systemd juxtaposition that takes place whenever either one is brought up. Sure, alternatives definitely exist, but none of them is as prevalent as systemd right now or sysvinit in it's heyday, hence the juxtaposition.
                  "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by moltonel View Post

                    * Horribly written probably. Did you check ? Sysvinit is actually very small, so only its age will make it horrible. Maybe you're thinking about the individual service scripts ?
                    * Bygone ages arguably, but it still has decades ahead of it.
                    * Highly monolithic not at all, it's actually very modular and straightforward. Systemd in contrast is indeed very monotithic and aggregates many features that would benefit from being independent.



                    OpenRC, has a healthy userbase and development pace, thanks for your concern. In many ways OpenRC is "SysVinit done right", it's cleanly written, not monolithic, nice to use, and featureful. My impression is that while many SysVinit users migrated (reluctantly or not) to Systemd, most OpenRC users happily stayed in OpenRC land.
                    You're contradicting yourself. First you defend SysV because it's such a great piece of software, but then you actually defend OpenRC because it's what SysV should've been, i.e. SysV secretly sucks because OpenRC is what SysV should've been...

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                      Woohoo after 20+ years sysvinit finally documents its init control protocol. Now maybe so other init system lets just say openrc/systemd can implement it.

                      There are a large number of still undocumented items in sysvinit.
                      Funny. Someone before you mentioned how straightforward sysvinit is, but it can't be straightforward is so many things are undocumented...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X