I strongly disagree that SMF wasn't a good system. I agree that some aspects of its UI weren't good, and that since in the beginning the Greenline team didn't

I strongly disagree that SMF wasn't a good system. I agree that some aspects of its UI weren't good, and that since in the beginning the Greenline team didn't model shutdown dependencies, shutdown for a long time wasn't fast. But the fundamentals of SMF were and remain solid, and they're really not that different from launchd and systemd, but predated systemd by a lot: - services as defined in some declarative language (XML, which isn't great is is what was reasonable in 2005) - services are imported into a database (SQLite2, because at the time SQLite3 was barely in existence) - distinguish persistent and temporary disabling of services (same as Windows) - restarter takes care of everything (no more accidental inheritance of wrong environ when restarted by hand) - process contracts (in Linux: cgroups) as a process grouping mechanism that allows related service processes to be monitored and killed together - link to FMA (fault management) Looking at TFA's opinions, I found this: https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/BashLocaleScriptDestruction https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/BashLocaleScr... -- but is it Bash or is it libc? Because I think it's libc. And yes, it's awful. But we have to place fault at the right feet. Just as with TFA's opinion about SMF, where IMO it's important to characterize the issues correctly.