4 ms·

There we go with the false dichotomy that just won't die again. It's pretty obvious you're not actually acquainted with the problem domain. Keep using whatever

There we go with the false dichotomy that just won't die again. It's pretty obvious you're not actually acquainted with the problem domain. Keep using whatever makes you feel comfortable, though.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Anyone who brings up sysvinit and the "30x 50-line shell scripts" is clearly one whose perception is limited to the ad-hoc LSB-based sysvinit setups that once permeated GNU/Linux, but which have always been merely one relatively inefficient approach. Even back when Debian first introduced their sysv-rc, we already had IBM SRC, daemontools, simpleinit and NetBSD rc.d which showed different solutions. EDIT: Let me join in on the moaning about downvotes. Not that I understand why.
  - nailer 11y ago
    SysVinit is systemd's predecessor, and thus the logical comparison. Upstart would also be a relevant, if anyone had ever adopted it properly, unfortunately it never got past being a SysVinit wrapper. I've used minimal shell based systems on BSD, Solaris SMF, and launchd, as well as Windows services, and maintain the successor to the now-unmaintained Unix Rosetta Stone. However a minimal shell-script based init is not something anyone on Linux is seriously considering, so I'm not going to debate it with you - that would be a waste of both our time. But please, feel free to tell me about my own experiences. Since you're new here, have you read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html yet?
bkor 11y ago
Ehr, that's exactly how it used to be. Various sysvinit scripts that all differed across distributions. It's pretty appalling the way you respond though, just dismissing instead of trying to educate. I'm reading along and I have no clue what you're on about. Maybe you mean that there was other stuff out there? I care about what is on a distribution. E.g. RHEL had upstart, but in practice it was lots of large sysvinit scripts.

There we go with the false dichotomy that just won't die again. It's pretty obvious you're not actually acquainted with the problem domain. Keep using whatever makes you feel comfortable, though.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Anyone who brings up sysvinit and the "30x 50-line shell scripts" is clearly one whose perception is limited to the ad-hoc LSB-based sysvinit setups that once permeated GNU/Linux, but which have always been merely one relatively inefficient approach. Even back when Debian first introduced their sysv-rc, we already had IBM SRC, daemontools, simpleinit and NetBSD rc.d which showed different solutions. EDIT: Let me join in on the moaning about downvotes. Not that I understand why.
- nailer 11y ago
  SysVinit is systemd's predecessor, and thus the logical comparison. Upstart would also be a relevant, if anyone had ever adopted it properly, unfortunately it never got past being a SysVinit wrapper. I've used minimal shell based systems on BSD, Solaris SMF, and launchd, as well as Windows services, and maintain the successor to the now-unmaintained Unix Rosetta Stone. However a minimal shell-script based init is not something anyone on Linux is seriously considering, so I'm not going to debate it with you - that would be a waste of both our time. But please, feel free to tell me about my own experiences. Since you're new here, have you read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html yet?

bkor 11y ago

Ehr, that's exactly how it used to be. Various sysvinit scripts that all differed across distributions. It's pretty appalling the way you respond though, just dismissing instead of trying to educate. I'm reading along and I have no clue what you're on about. Maybe you mean that there was other stuff out there? I care about what is on a distribution. E.g. RHEL had upstart, but in practice it was lots of large sysvinit scripts.