3 ms·
Literally anything is better than init and the jumbled mess of shell scripts accompanying it, then. init (the process) != init (the system), but you're right a
by _yy 11y ago
Literally anything is better than init and the jumbled mess of shell scripts accompanying it, then.
init (the process) != init (the system), but you're right about the terminology, of course.
- vox_mollis 11y agoJumbled mess of shell scripts as opposed to jumbled mess of unit files? /lib/systemd/system is identical to /etc/rc.d in terms of maintenance complexity
- jude- 11y agoI also find this a peculiar thing to say. Systemd replaces a few thousand lines of shell scripts and several dozen small well-tested binaries (i.e. coreutils and friends) with a suite of tightly-coupled daemons and tools written in a few hundreds of thousands of lines of C. They haven't removed the "jumbled mess" or made the implementation less complex; they've just hidden it away inside opaque binaries. I'll grant that LSB sysvinit scripts aren't the easiest on the eyes, but they're hardly the shining example of what a scripted init system can look like. OpenBSD's rc scripts are far more elegant and just as featureful, IMHO.
- feld 11y agoI'm sorry that on Linux you don't have a nice rc script framework like the BSDs do so the entire wheel doesn't have to be reinvented in every init script. https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/etc/rc.subr?view=markup https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/etc/rc.subr?view=markup
- cperciva 11y agoLiterally anything is better than init and the jumbled mess of shell scripts accompanying it, then. Those scripts are completely different between SysV, old-style BSD, and BSD rc.d. I agree that SysV init scripts tend to be a jumbled mess, but they could be replaced with the rc.d framework without throwing out init entirely.