4 ms·

Serious questions: Have you taken the time to examine how a Linux system that uses a replacement for sysvrc written in the last ten years actually handles star

Serious questions: Have you taken the time to examine how a Linux system that uses a replacement for sysvrc written in the last ten years actually handles startup? Or what services people who aren't running a RedHat distro actually run on their Linux servers? Or have you simply either taken the systemd folks at their word about the "sorry state" of sysvrc replacements, or -perhaps- glanced at a >10 line startup script and recoiled in horror?

nailer 11y ago
1. Yes. 2. Yes. Folks who aren't running 'RedHat' (sic) use systemd, sysvinit, or pretend to use upstart but as a thin wrapper to sysvinit. 3. No, I don't generally listen to Linux advocates as a way of evaluating something.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > 1. Yes. 2. Yes. ... 3. No... Good. Far too many people in these conversations have poorly-informed opinions. > Folks who aren't running 'RedHat' (sic) use systemd, sysvinit, or ... upstart [sic] ... These are init and RC systems, not services. :) > ...or pretend to use upstart but as a thin wrapper to sysvinit. I dunno. The Upstart project page says: "Upstart is an event-based replacement for the /sbin/init daemon which handles starting of tasks and services during boot, stopping them during shutdown and supervising them while the system is running. It was originally developed for the Ubuntu distribution, but is intended to be suitable for deployment in all Linux distributions as a replacement for the venerable System-V init." If I look at the file list for the upstart package, [1] I see that upstart provides its own /sbin/init, /sbin/halt, and -it seems- just about everything that's provided by the sys-apps/sysvinit package on my Gentoo system. Also, sysvinit and sysvrc aren't the same thing. OpenRC -the default Gentoo RC system- is a sysvrc replacement. [2] It relies on sysvinit (or similar) to get its work done, and is an obvious improvement over sysvrc. If you were aware of the distinction, and have the time, would you be so kind as to mention the top N worst things about sysvinit? If you weren't aware, and have the time, would you care to learn the distinction, and then bounce on back and answer the query? Thanks in advance. :) [0] http://upstart.ubuntu.com/ http://upstart.ubuntu.com/ [1] https://packages.debian.org/jessie/amd64/upstart/filelist https://packages.debian.org/jessie/amd64/upstart/filelist [2] If I'm reading this right, Debian even maintains a sysvrc package: https://packages.debian.org/jessie/sysv-rc https://packages.debian.org/jessie/sysv-rc
  - nailer 11y ago
    Yep, I assumed you meant service managers not services. People not running Red Hat use the same services as Red Hat people do. Everyone runs web servers, mail servers, NFS, whatever else. If you actually meant services, then what's your point? Re further requests for info, I don't really want to continue the conversation, because you should have apologised by this point and haven't. Don't presume to know things about other people, it's rude and looks poor when you're wrong.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > Don't presume to know things about other people... That would be why I started my initial comment with questions, rather than presuming that I knew your background and knowledge and launching into poorly-formed and ill-founded accusation and/or assertion. :) I'm trying to have a serious, level-headed discussion about a topic that is -inexplicably- sensitive for a few groups of people. In order to do so, I need to discover the pertinent information about the background and knowledge of my conversation partners. > If you actually meant services, then what's your point? I did. That would be why I asked about services rather than RC systems. :) I know that many people don't work this way, but if you can try to keep in mind [0] that I try hard to say what I mean, and leave nothing but white noise in between the lines of my statements. Anyway, my point is this. You said: > I'd take systemd over sysv init, atd, crond, three or four watcher daemons, syslog, various other semi-maintained tools that replicate each other's functionality... which I took to be a little strange. It seems like this is your understanding of the typical set of services a Linux system runs, but it doesn't jive with how either I or my handful of professional sysadmin friends run our systems. We generally don't run atd, leave any FS watching up to the software package that actually needs it, avoid using tools that duplicate each other's functionality like the plague, and tend to not use unmaintained software... unless it's clear that that software is "done". I've known several friends and acquaintances who have gone off to work for Red Hat. They've -to a man- come back with some really strange, very hard-line positions about how Linux systems are "supposed" to work. One of them vehemently insisted that -because of the complexity of dependency management and testing- a highly-flexible, rolling-release distro like Gentoo Linux was impossible. [1] Because of my personal experience with how Red Hat seems to have enweirdened some of my friends and acquaintances, and because I knew next to nothing about your background, I wanted to ensure that you had indeed stepped out of the Red Hat bubble and seriously looked at what other companies and distros consider a typical set of services and the features provided by and operation of their sysvrc replacements. [0] I won't fault you if you can't. I have quite a difficult time remembering what I had for breakfast, let alone the rhetorical styles of the couple-dozen one-off Internet conversation partners that I've had over the past several months. :) [1] Note that his position was not "Only a fool would attempt to provide guaranteed enterprise support for any and all arbitrary Gentoo Linux configurations because of $COMPLEXITY."! I can't argue with that position. I asked him if perhaps he misspoke and that maybe this or something similar was closer to his actual position. He vehemently denied that it was, and doubled-down on his original statement.

nailer 11y ago

1. Yes. 2. Yes. Folks who aren't running 'RedHat' (sic) use systemd, sysvinit, or pretend to use upstart but as a thin wrapper to sysvinit. 3. No, I don't generally listen to Linux advocates as a way of evaluating something.

simoncion 11y ago
> 1. Yes. 2. Yes. ... 3. No... Good. Far too many people in these conversations have poorly-informed opinions. > Folks who aren't running 'RedHat' (sic) use systemd, sysvinit, or ... upstart [sic] ... These are init and RC systems, not services. :) > ...or pretend to use upstart but as a thin wrapper to sysvinit. I dunno. The Upstart project page says: "Upstart is an event-based replacement for the /sbin/init daemon which handles starting of tasks and services during boot, stopping them during shutdown and supervising them while the system is running. It was originally developed for the Ubuntu distribution, but is intended to be suitable for deployment in all Linux distributions as a replacement for the venerable System-V init." If I look at the file list for the upstart package, [1] I see that upstart provides its own /sbin/init, /sbin/halt, and -it seems- just about everything that's provided by the sys-apps/sysvinit package on my Gentoo system. Also, sysvinit and sysvrc aren't the same thing. OpenRC -the default Gentoo RC system- is a sysvrc replacement. [2] It relies on sysvinit (or similar) to get its work done, and is an obvious improvement over sysvrc. If you were aware of the distinction, and have the time, would you be so kind as to mention the top N worst things about sysvinit? If you weren't aware, and have the time, would you care to learn the distinction, and then bounce on back and answer the query? Thanks in advance. :) [0] http://upstart.ubuntu.com/ http://upstart.ubuntu.com/ [1] https://packages.debian.org/jessie/amd64/upstart/filelist https://packages.debian.org/jessie/amd64/upstart/filelist [2] If I'm reading this right, Debian even maintains a sysvrc package: https://packages.debian.org/jessie/sysv-rc https://packages.debian.org/jessie/sysv-rc
- nailer 11y ago
  Yep, I assumed you meant service managers not services. People not running Red Hat use the same services as Red Hat people do. Everyone runs web servers, mail servers, NFS, whatever else. If you actually meant services, then what's your point? Re further requests for info, I don't really want to continue the conversation, because you should have apologised by this point and haven't. Don't presume to know things about other people, it's rude and looks poor when you're wrong.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > Don't presume to know things about other people... That would be why I started my initial comment with questions, rather than presuming that I knew your background and knowledge and launching into poorly-formed and ill-founded accusation and/or assertion. :) I'm trying to have a serious, level-headed discussion about a topic that is -inexplicably- sensitive for a few groups of people. In order to do so, I need to discover the pertinent information about the background and knowledge of my conversation partners. > If you actually meant services, then what's your point? I did. That would be why I asked about services rather than RC systems. :) I know that many people don't work this way, but if you can try to keep in mind [0] that I try hard to say what I mean, and leave nothing but white noise in between the lines of my statements. Anyway, my point is this. You said: > I'd take systemd over sysv init, atd, crond, three or four watcher daemons, syslog, various other semi-maintained tools that replicate each other's functionality... which I took to be a little strange. It seems like this is your understanding of the typical set of services a Linux system runs, but it doesn't jive with how either I or my handful of professional sysadmin friends run our systems. We generally don't run atd, leave any FS watching up to the software package that actually needs it, avoid using tools that duplicate each other's functionality like the plague, and tend to not use unmaintained software... unless it's clear that that software is "done". I've known several friends and acquaintances who have gone off to work for Red Hat. They've -to a man- come back with some really strange, very hard-line positions about how Linux systems are "supposed" to work. One of them vehemently insisted that -because of the complexity of dependency management and testing- a highly-flexible, rolling-release distro like Gentoo Linux was impossible. [1] Because of my personal experience with how Red Hat seems to have enweirdened some of my friends and acquaintances, and because I knew next to nothing about your background, I wanted to ensure that you had indeed stepped out of the Red Hat bubble and seriously looked at what other companies and distros consider a typical set of services and the features provided by and operation of their sysvrc replacements. [0] I won't fault you if you can't. I have quite a difficult time remembering what I had for breakfast, let alone the rhetorical styles of the couple-dozen one-off Internet conversation partners that I've had over the past several months. :) [1] Note that his position was not "Only a fool would attempt to provide guaranteed enterprise support for any and all arbitrary Gentoo Linux configurations because of $COMPLEXITY."! I can't argue with that position. I asked him if perhaps he misspoke and that maybe this or something similar was closer to his actual position. He vehemently denied that it was, and doubled-down on his original statement.