4 ms·

This is _exactly_ what I'm talking about. Neither SAF or srcmstr are equivalent to systemd, and you know it. Making the argument that they're even in the same b

This is _exactly_ what I'm talking about. Neither SAF or srcmstr are equivalent to systemd, and you know it. Making the argument that they're even in the same ballpark is fatuous, except insofar as they have some abstract concept of service groups and replacing sysvinit with something better.

JdeBP 8y ago
What is you are really talking about is self-contradictory drivel, claiming that Unices were diverse and in the next breath stating that they only had "either BSD init or sysvinit". Clearly, you are presenting ahistoric rubbish. Trying to introduce strawmen, as you now are, when shown that is at best diversionary. The simple, but sadly not well known and in your case outright denied, truth is that the Unix world took stuff out of the old inittab+runlevels system that you erroneously claim was one of the the only two things going, and had service managers with many of the features that one would recognize today, from auto-restart through requirements not to "daemonize" and specialized configuration languages for setting processes up that replace shell scripts and dedicated control/administration tools to per-socket-connection instantiation with environment variables describing the endpoints, two decades ago.
- evol262 8y ago
  I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The idea that UNIXes diverge from either BSD or SysV is not controversial. The fact that virtually every commercial UNIX had a completely different set of administration tools (other than vxfs as a add-on product to many) for any and every administrative task and init scripts in different locations are not orthogonal. "This system derives from SysV and that system derives from SysV, so I can administer them the same way" is complete bollocks and always was, even down to the location of the init scripts. That's the point. At no point did I make any claim that inittab+runlevels was the "only thing going". I claimed that many systemd detractors hold to some abstract idea of a "pure" UNIX which never existed in the first place. As mentioned in my last comment (or my first comment) recognizing that there are fundamental limitations to traditional init and replacing or supplementing it with whatever (SAF, srcmstr, openrc, initng, you name it) and "being like systemd" are not even remotely the same thing except that they both manage service initialization. This kind of false dichotomy is the point of the original post, which you missed in your fervor to turn it into a strawman. launchd, upstart, smf, runit, and other modern replacements are also not "like systemd" except that they manage services. SRC didn't replace init _at all_. It was a system run in parallel, as you well know. It was not a replacement for sysvinit, and AIX still has sysvinit. Again, as you well know, but it doesn't fit your narrative.

JdeBP 8y ago

What is you are really talking about is self-contradictory drivel, claiming that Unices were diverse and in the next breath stating that they only had "either BSD init or sysvinit". Clearly, you are presenting ahistoric rubbish. Trying to introduce strawmen, as you now are, when shown that is at best diversionary. The simple, but sadly not well known and in your case outright denied, truth is that the Unix world took stuff out of the old inittab+runlevels system that you erroneously claim was one of the the only two things going, and had service managers with many of the features that one would recognize today, from auto-restart through requirements not to "daemonize" and specialized configuration languages for setting processes up that replace shell scripts and dedicated control/administration tools to per-socket-connection instantiation with environment variables describing the endpoints, two decades ago.

evol262 8y ago
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The idea that UNIXes diverge from either BSD or SysV is not controversial. The fact that virtually every commercial UNIX had a completely different set of administration tools (other than vxfs as a add-on product to many) for any and every administrative task and init scripts in different locations are not orthogonal. "This system derives from SysV and that system derives from SysV, so I can administer them the same way" is complete bollocks and always was, even down to the location of the init scripts. That's the point. At no point did I make any claim that inittab+runlevels was the "only thing going". I claimed that many systemd detractors hold to some abstract idea of a "pure" UNIX which never existed in the first place. As mentioned in my last comment (or my first comment) recognizing that there are fundamental limitations to traditional init and replacing or supplementing it with whatever (SAF, srcmstr, openrc, initng, you name it) and "being like systemd" are not even remotely the same thing except that they both manage service initialization. This kind of false dichotomy is the point of the original post, which you missed in your fervor to turn it into a strawman. launchd, upstart, smf, runit, and other modern replacements are also not "like systemd" except that they manage services. SRC didn't replace init _at all_. It was a system run in parallel, as you well know. It was not a replacement for sysvinit, and AIX still has sysvinit. Again, as you well know, but it doesn't fit your narrative.