3 ms·

Post is nearly entirely whataboutism. > The world is moving and sysvinit is left behind. Contrary to the popular belief in your microcosm, the world did not a

Post is nearly entirely whataboutism. > The world is moving and sysvinit is left behind. Contrary to the popular belief in your microcosm, the world did not adopt systemd. Android, Knoppix, Slackware, among dozens of other distros, rejected systemd. macOS uses launchd, which inspired systemd, yet launchd is generally more unix-like in that it assumes a daemon knows what's best for itself, and doesn't make decisions for it, nor is launchd aggressively annexing Darwin. Oracle Solaris, Illumos and variants use SMF of which sysvinit is likely a dependency, while NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD use rc, a BSD-style init also of which sysvinit is likely a dependency. Though Linux replaced a lot of BSD installations in the last decade, like systemd has replaced sysvinit in a lot of distros, the decision to do so was arbitrary and without compelling advantage or reason, and apparently mostly due to fanatical devotion. BSD, fwiw, isn't going away, and in various implementation, neither is init.

theamk 4y ago
Did you notice I haven't mention systemd in my comment at all? And other than this first sentence, I am not going to mention it in this comment at all. The important thing is not who won, but the fact that the idea of writing init scripts in bash/sh has lost. Almost no one wants to maintain yet another incomplete or buggy shell script implementating of "start", "stop" and "status" commands. It is declarative way now - somehow define the command, arguments, user etc.. and let init system handle start/stop. (Yes, there are still ancient systems like Slackware which use plain bash and have no plans to change. But even FreeBSD is pushing toward declarive: look at [0], does this look like a simple shell script which makes it cleat what's going on?) [0] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/rc-scripting/#rcng-daemon https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/rc-scripting/#rcng-daem... That's why the people who advocate sysvinit get so little support. Try advocating for runit or daemontools or launchd or openrc or even SMF ( :) ), this will get you further.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Did you notice I haven't mention systemd in my comment at all? That's how whataboutism works. It's a special type of tu quoque argument. > That's why the people who advocate sysvinit get so little support. I don't think there are any sysvinit advocates, only those advocating for simplicity & against complexity.

theamk 4y ago

Did you notice I haven't mention systemd in my comment at all? And other than this first sentence, I am not going to mention it in this comment at all. The important thing is not who won, but the fact that the idea of writing init scripts in bash/sh has lost. Almost no one wants to maintain yet another incomplete or buggy shell script implementating of "start", "stop" and "status" commands. It is declarative way now - somehow define the command, arguments, user etc.. and let init system handle start/stop. (Yes, there are still ancient systems like Slackware which use plain bash and have no plans to change. But even FreeBSD is pushing toward declarive: look at [0], does this look like a simple shell script which makes it cleat what's going on?) [0] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/rc-scripting/#rcng-daemon https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/rc-scripting/#rcng-daem... That's why the people who advocate sysvinit get so little support. Try advocating for runit or daemontools or launchd or openrc or even SMF ( :) ), this will get you further.

Maursault 4y ago
> Did you notice I haven't mention systemd in my comment at all? That's how whataboutism works. It's a special type of tu quoque argument. > That's why the people who advocate sysvinit get so little support. I don't think there are any sysvinit advocates, only those advocating for simplicity & against complexity.