3 ms·

syn0byte explicitly said "any number of other init systems", and was clearly trying to avoid people trotting out, as you and several others have, the tired old

by JdeBP 8y ago

syn0byte explicitly said "any number of other init systems", and was clearly trying to avoid people trotting out, as you and several others have, the tired old fallacy, called out by the Uselessd Guy long since, of assuming that only systemd and van Smoorenburg init+rc exist ... * http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8488235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8488235) * https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/run-scripts-and-service-units-side-by-side.html http://jdebp.eu./FGA/run-scripts-and-service-units-side-by-s... ... and then calling the latter "System V init", when AT&T System V had actually adopted a new system with separate system and service management several years before Linux was even invented. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18788974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18788974

foldr 8y ago
I took syn0byte to be asking for an example of an init system that systemd is better than. I can't really see any other interpretation of their comment. >and then calling the latter "System V init", This is what everyone calls it in the context of Linux init systems. You may not like that particular piece of terminology, but please don't give me a hard time for following the standard usage.
- JdeBP 8y ago
  > I can't really see any other interpretation of their comment. Then you are unable to distinguish singulars from plurals.
  - foldr 8y ago
    No, the comment asks whether it's better than any number of other init systems. In other words, whether there are any other init systems that it's better than. So a counterexample could be a single init system. I see no other sensible interpretation of the sentence. Could you paraphrase what you take it to mean?
- syn0byte 8y ago
  "any other init system..." originally included "...besides an ancient SysV strawman." but I removed it because it seemed overly snarky. Having written and dealt with both; It's about equal in my time and effort to write either in sh or windows ini/'unit' files.
  - foldr 8y ago
    If you claim that System V init is just as good as systemd, then it is a relevant comparison rather than a straw man, no? In many cases there were a substantial number of people who wanted to keep System V init rather than move to systemd (e.g. https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/sysvinit https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/sysvinit). System V init wasn't an ancient straw man for Debian users. It was the init system that systemd replaced.

by JdeBP 8y ago

foldr 8y ago

I took syn0byte to be asking for an example of an init system that systemd is better than. I can't really see any other interpretation of their comment. >and then calling the latter "System V init", This is what everyone calls it in the context of Linux init systems. You may not like that particular piece of terminology, but please don't give me a hard time for following the standard usage.

JdeBP 8y ago
> I can't really see any other interpretation of their comment. Then you are unable to distinguish singulars from plurals.
- foldr 8y ago
  No, the comment asks whether it's better than any number of other init systems. In other words, whether there are any other init systems that it's better than. So a counterexample could be a single init system. I see no other sensible interpretation of the sentence. Could you paraphrase what you take it to mean?
syn0byte 8y ago
"any other init system..." originally included "...besides an ancient SysV strawman." but I removed it because it seemed overly snarky. Having written and dealt with both; It's about equal in my time and effort to write either in sh or windows ini/'unit' files.
- foldr 8y ago
  If you claim that System V init is just as good as systemd, then it is a relevant comparison rather than a straw man, no? In many cases there were a substantial number of people who wanted to keep System V init rather than move to systemd (e.g. https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/sysvinit https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/sysvinit). System V init wasn't an ancient straw man for Debian users. It was the init system that systemd replaced.