Originally posted by rtfazeberdee
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
SysVinit 2.90 Released With Fixes & Better Support For Newer Compilers
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by moltonel View PostSystemd in contrast is indeed very monotithic and aggregates many features that would benefit from being independent.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oiaohm View PostWoohoo 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by moltonel View PostThere 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by L_A_G View PostBecause the only alternative is a horribly written, highly monolithic failure of a project created to replace it.
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Candy View PostWhy would anyone use this horribly written, highly monolithic artifact from bygone ages?
Because people jumped to another horrible written, highly monolithic piece of software
* 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 PostI don't think there are that many OpenRC users out there.
- Likes 5
Leave a comment:
-
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
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by lostdistance View PostEmbedded systems.
In my current job I use sysvinit to start a video decode application on an Intel Braswell Qseven module.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: