3 ms·
I don't know of many people who actually liked sysvinit. It's mostly apathy due to its low surface (though actually sysvinit is still monolithic and overly coup
by vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I don't know of many people who actually liked sysvinit. It's mostly apathy due to its low surface (though actually sysvinit is still monolithic and overly coupled compared to members of the daemontools family like runit or s6).
It's a red herring, anyway. People have been replacing classic BSD and SysV initialization schemes since 1992 [1], but systemd was the first to penetrate the scene quite massively for a plethora of reasons that no one can seem to agree on.
[1] http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/
- ewzimm 11y agoResponses to software seem to follow patterns. Sysvinit is basically Windows XP. People hated it for its lack of sophistication until it got replaced by Vista with its enhanced permissions, which people found inconvenient because they required slightly different interactions, and then XP became, if not good, at least the best in existence. Systemd will eventually be replaced by a minor revision which addresses the main complaints of the vocal minority, and then when NeoUpstart establishes dominance despite a massive list of bugs, systemd will rise to immaculate status and everyone will brag about how they used it before it was cool.
- rodgerd 11y ago> Sysvinit is basically Windows XP. Honestly that's unfair to XP/Windows Server 2003 which had much better supervisor capability than sysvinit provides.