Originally posted by Vistaus
View Post
Claim that sysvinit is straight forwards when you go across multi sysvinit distributions become bogus really quickly. If sysvinit was like bsd init system that is high documented it would be another matter.
Openrc support BSD init and sysvinit syntax. Sysvinit needs lot work on documentation and it still has other issues like depend in PID values not being reused in many script. Reality is sysvinit need to be got rid of and replace with something designed better and better documented. One of the reasons why BSD has held popularity against Linux in particular fields is rcorder so you have to include dependency information in you init scripts and they will be loaded on the right order. There is a lot of issues under sysvinit with init scripts starting in the wrong order then having to debug that.
Really anyone claiming sysvinit is straight forwards has never worked with it. BSD init and the inits like it has the right to be called straight forwards as they are truly straight forwards to use and documented. Heck the busybox init is better documented in one place than sysvinit.
That control protocol not being documented has resulted in sysvinit command line tools not working to shut system down because someone change something that change the protocol. Its only taken 20+ years to document something that need to be kept backwards compatible so that never version of sysvinit control tools work with older sysvinit PID1 loaded and the reverse. Those wishing to keep on using sysvinit should be put in a lot of effort fixing it or give up on sysvinit. Lot of distributions gave up on sysvinit and have gone systemd because they did not see a future where sysvinit was fixed and worked.
Comment