5 ms·
> distros still using SysV exist if it matters to you As a BSD user, it wouldn't matter to xem at all. The BSDs never used the AT&T System 5 mechanism, nor it
by JdeBP 7y ago
> distros still using SysV exist if it matters to you
As a BSD user, it wouldn't matter to xem at all. The BSDs never used the AT&T System 5 mechanism, nor its van Smoorenburg clone. It's you the Linux user that it matters to, and even then not nearly as much as you are implying it might matter to someone else. It pretty much hasn't mattered greatly to anyone apart from Linux, and before it Minix, users for 30 years.
There is a fallacy in discussions of systemd, which was called out by the Uselessd Guy years ago. It is the fallacy that only systemd and van Smoorenburg init/rc exist. This is not the case. It wasn't the case for Ubuntu and Fedora. It is especially not so when a BSD is the topic. The BSDs have a quite different family heritage in this area.
But then, AT&T Unix itself actually has a different history to what people who bandy about the erroneous "SysV/systemd" dichotomy think. The init/rc that Miquel van Smoorenburg cloned had actually already been superseded years before Linux was even invented. It wasn't used in the BSD side of the universe at all. But it was only a major mechanism in the AT&T side of the universe for just over half a decade, in the 1980s.
The BSD side of the universe could turn around and observe that they were right all along; were it not for the fact that the other side of the universe largely thought better of the mechanism as well, coming up with the SAF in 1988 and the likes of the SRC in 1991. (-: Of course, the BSD world wasn't just standing still all of those years, moreover, and had things like /etc/rc.local.d/ and Mewburn rc.
* https://web.archive.org/web/20190306213420/http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190306213420/http://uselessd.d...
* http://jdebp.uk./FGA/rc.local-is-history.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/rc.local-is-history.html
* http://jdebp.uk./FGA/inittab-getty-is-history.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/inittab-getty-is-history.html
* http://jdebp.uk./FGA/run-levels-are-history.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/run-levels-are-history.html
* http://jdebp.uk./FGA/unix-service-access-facility.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/unix-service-access-facility.html
* https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/
- GordonS 7y agoI have to say, I'm very confused by this, and I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. > As a BSD user, it wouldn't matter to xem at all I can only assume "xem" is some kind of "BSD thing"? > It's you the Linux user that it matters to... AT&T Unix itself actually has a different history to what people who bandy about the erroneous "SysV/systemd" dichotomy think... I did actually say I didn't care much either way, in part because I really didn't want to derail this thread into a sysv/systemd flamewar - I only wanted to know why I might use BSD over Linux.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]