2 ms·

>> but some people _like_ sysvinit > Is that really true Yes

• IntelMiner 7y ago
  Forgive me if it sounds like I'm trying to bait into an argument, but Why? What is the appeal of writing immensely long, fragile shell scripts? Having to wrap them in various monitoring and logging daemons Having to have different ones for every distro you want to support with your software Is this something that is truly a productive use of your time? Putting aside the question of if systemd is "good" or not. Is the current sysvinit system truly "good enough" and not in need of change?
  • yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    > Is the current sysvinit system truly "good enough" and not in need of change? Something having been used for decades certainly doesn't mean that it's optimal and shouldn't be changed, but it does strongly suggest that it's good enough.
  • johnr2 7y ago
    > Is the current sysvinit system truly "good enough" and not in need of change? For me it's relative and a case of "the devil I know". I actually prefer BSD-style init to sysvinit, but I've used the latter for ~20 years. I'm aware that traditional init systems may not meet the requirements of certain users (eg. those who run very large server installations), but for my simple use case (small servers and workstations) they do the job. I'm not against change per se; I'm running Void (with runit) on one of my systems, and the desktop I'm using to post this runs OpenBSD.