3 ms·

You do realize Solaris implemented a service management system (which is also superior to systemd; and was also created prior to systemd's conception), right ?

You do realize Solaris implemented a service management system (which is also superior to systemd; and was also created prior to systemd's conception), right ? They switched away from legacy SysV init scripts BEFORE systemd existed.

nailer 8y ago
> superior to systemd SMD was based around XML, which caused a lot of boaking. systemd was based around .desktop, aka .ini syntax.
dijit 8y ago
SMF was quite nice. Solaris was incredible in a lot of ways. I always wonder why it never took off.
- sverige 8y ago
  > I always wonder why it never took off. Because Larry Ellison bought Sun.
- rsync 8y ago
  "I always wonder why it never took off." It did take off and had a long and productive life. Many, many of the early ISPs and webhosting providers were built on Solaris 2.6 and "7". In the late nineties it was very common to go into a datacenter and see racks full of ultra 2 boxes stacked on one another ... If you went to college between 1992 and 1999 you were almost assured to log into a SunOS or Solaris system to read your email or ftp or whatever. It was only when the dot-com money dried up that people (including myself) made the switch to PC based servers in an effort to save money.
- digi_owl 8y ago
  Because nobody were interested? Damn it, Apple have a similar thing going in OSX (or whatever their greasy marketing wants to call it this year) but when it was basically offered to the BSDs on a silver platter they didn't want it.
  - dijit 8y ago
    Implying that launchd and SMF are similar shows how little you know about both systems. Launchd is mostly crappy, obtuse plist files, a semi-broken DAG, socket activation that spins your machine to death. SMF was an access point to many things, it was clean, concise and pointed you towards the actual things that the OS provided. (like; log files) It was a pleasure to work with. The only problem was that service definitions were configured with XML, I have never been a fan of XML.

nailer 8y ago

> superior to systemd SMD was based around XML, which caused a lot of boaking. systemd was based around .desktop, aka .ini syntax.

dijit 8y ago

SMF was quite nice. Solaris was incredible in a lot of ways. I always wonder why it never took off.

sverige 8y ago
> I always wonder why it never took off. Because Larry Ellison bought Sun.
rsync 8y ago
"I always wonder why it never took off." It did take off and had a long and productive life. Many, many of the early ISPs and webhosting providers were built on Solaris 2.6 and "7". In the late nineties it was very common to go into a datacenter and see racks full of ultra 2 boxes stacked on one another ... If you went to college between 1992 and 1999 you were almost assured to log into a SunOS or Solaris system to read your email or ftp or whatever. It was only when the dot-com money dried up that people (including myself) made the switch to PC based servers in an effort to save money.
digi_owl 8y ago
Because nobody were interested? Damn it, Apple have a similar thing going in OSX (or whatever their greasy marketing wants to call it this year) but when it was basically offered to the BSDs on a silver platter they didn't want it.
- dijit 8y ago
  Implying that launchd and SMF are similar shows how little you know about both systems. Launchd is mostly crappy, obtuse plist files, a semi-broken DAG, socket activation that spins your machine to death. SMF was an access point to many things, it was clean, concise and pointed you towards the actual things that the OS provided. (like; log files) It was a pleasure to work with. The only problem was that service definitions were configured with XML, I have never been a fan of XML.