4 ms·

SysV init was the overengineered cousin to BSD init and I never liked it. Easily my least favorite of all init systems I've worked with over the last 30 years.

SysV init was the overengineered cousin to BSD init and I never liked it. Easily my least favorite of all init systems I've worked with over the last 30 years. On the flip side, daemontools or maybe runit were my favorites. Lots of good options for init/supervision tooling over the years and SysV was not among them.

cf100clunk 9mo ago
If we look on LFS for its academic merit, I'm saddened that key historical elements of Unix/Linux design are being left behind, much like closing down a wing of a laboratory or museum and telling students that they'll need to whip up their own material to fill in those gaps.
- onraglanroad 9mo ago
  Yes, it's like asking students to actually produce something themselves. What a horrific thought.
  - cf100clunk 9mo ago
    If the students have been well trained, they should be trusted to experiment. If the course curriculum demands that they produce something themselves yet does not educate them on doing so, that's horrific.
- nine_k 9mo ago
  Certain things should only be taught as a warning. SysV init is one of them.
  - cf100clunk 9mo ago
    Back in the day, system run levels were seen as desirable. SysVinit went in on that concept to the max. So, if the concept of run levels isn't clear to the student beforehand, the init system for making it happen would therefore be mystifying and maybe even inscrutible.
    - nine_k 9mo ago
      Runlevels may be an interesting idea (e.g. the single-user maintenance level). But a bunch of shell scripts, each complex enough to support different commands, sort-of-declare dependencies, etc, is not such a great idea. A Makefile describing runlevels and service dependencies would be a cleaner design (not necessarily a nicer implementation).
      - its_magic 9mo ago
        On the contrary, I much prefer a full Turing complete language rather than trying to shoehorn my ideas into someone else's limited system. The scripts don't have to be complicated, and it doesn't have to be shell scripts. You can use any script or executable that the Linux kernel can load and run. But shell scripts work great and have all the power needed. Systemd is a giant, flaming heap of buggy ass code. Good riddance to it.
- ktm5j 9mo ago
  From the announcement, it saddens them too: > As a personal note, I do not like this decision. To me LFS is about learning how a system works. Understanding the boot process is a big part of that. systemd is about 1678 "C" files plus many data files. System V is "22" C files plus about 50 short bash scripts and data files. However the reasoning they provide makes sense.. It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd.
  - dTal 9mo ago
    Is it? What's the connection between systemd and having a desktop?
    - ktm5j 9mo ago
      Read the article: "The second reason for dropping System V is that packages like GNOME and soon KDE's Plasma are building in requirements that require capabilities in systemd"
      - cf100clunk 9mo ago
        If GNOME and KDE were the only desktop solutions, your ''Read the article'' comment would be sensible.
  - simoncion 9mo ago
    > It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd. Most Gentoo Linux desktop users disagree. In fact, OpenRC is the default in that distro. Having said that, I do expect that Gentoo has more manpower available than LFS.
    - ktm5j 9mo ago
      Maybe they're KDE users. I was under the impression that gnome requires it. FTA it sounds like KDE will soon too. Gentoo doesn't come with a desktop by default either, you have to emerge it, which might install systemd.. FTA: "The second reason for dropping System V is that packages like GNOME and soon KDE's Plasma are building in requirements that require capabilities in systemd"
- jdub 9mo ago
  LFS never had academic, educational, or pedagogical merit. It was always sheer faith that by doing enough busywork (except the truly difficult stuff), something might rub off. Maybe you learn some names of component parts. Components change.
  - its_magic 9mo ago
    Could you expand on this comment please? (I don't think your viewpoint should be so rudely dismissed through downvoting and moving on.) What do you mean?
- dark-star 9mo ago
  The old versions of LFS are still available to satisfy your curiosity. Someone should probably save the required source package versions (and patches) before they disappear though
acdha 9mo ago
SysV was this weird blind spot for many years. I remember installing daemontools on the OpenBSD server my office ran on because it was nicer to work with, and thinking that the Linux world would switch to avoid losing that particular feature war with Windows.
- simoncion 9mo ago
  Gentoo Linux has been using OpenRC for at least as long as I've been using it (~25 years). It's unfortunate that OpenRC was unable to summon the manpower to do the spot-additions required for it to win the political war way back when Debian was looking to move from straight SysV init.
  - its_magic 9mo ago
    It would have never happened. Systemd wasn't chosen because "we the people" chose it. Things don't work like that anymore, regardless of what the marketing brochure might say.
kmeisthax 9mo ago
It's always a little amusing when the Open Source Tea Party bemoans the lack of "the UNIX way" and someone else with actual historical experience (and not misguided nostalgia) brings perspective. On a related note, X11 was never good and there's a whole chapter in the UNIX-HATERS Handbook explaining why.
- its_magic 9mo ago
  It was never good? Weird. Works fine for me. When will Wayland earn the label "good"? I don't think it currently qualifies.
  - kmeisthax 9mo ago
    It works fine for you because... 1. You're using X11 with hardware that is fantastically newer than anything available at the time the UNIX-HATERS Handbook was written. 2. Every graphics vendor that still supports X11 is shipping workarounds for bugs in Xorg. I used to have a citation for that second one but it went away when Hector Martin dropped off the face of the Internet.

cf100clunk 9mo ago

If we look on LFS for its academic merit, I'm saddened that key historical elements of Unix/Linux design are being left behind, much like closing down a wing of a laboratory or museum and telling students that they'll need to whip up their own material to fill in those gaps.

onraglanroad 9mo ago
Yes, it's like asking students to actually produce something themselves. What a horrific thought.
- cf100clunk 9mo ago
  If the students have been well trained, they should be trusted to experiment. If the course curriculum demands that they produce something themselves yet does not educate them on doing so, that's horrific.
nine_k 9mo ago
Certain things should only be taught as a warning. SysV init is one of them.
- cf100clunk 9mo ago
  Back in the day, system run levels were seen as desirable. SysVinit went in on that concept to the max. So, if the concept of run levels isn't clear to the student beforehand, the init system for making it happen would therefore be mystifying and maybe even inscrutible.
  - nine_k 9mo ago
    Runlevels may be an interesting idea (e.g. the single-user maintenance level). But a bunch of shell scripts, each complex enough to support different commands, sort-of-declare dependencies, etc, is not such a great idea. A Makefile describing runlevels and service dependencies would be a cleaner design (not necessarily a nicer implementation).
    - its_magic 9mo ago
      On the contrary, I much prefer a full Turing complete language rather than trying to shoehorn my ideas into someone else's limited system. The scripts don't have to be complicated, and it doesn't have to be shell scripts. You can use any script or executable that the Linux kernel can load and run. But shell scripts work great and have all the power needed. Systemd is a giant, flaming heap of buggy ass code. Good riddance to it.
ktm5j 9mo ago
From the announcement, it saddens them too: > As a personal note, I do not like this decision. To me LFS is about learning how a system works. Understanding the boot process is a big part of that. systemd is about 1678 "C" files plus many data files. System V is "22" C files plus about 50 short bash scripts and data files. However the reasoning they provide makes sense.. It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd.
- dTal 9mo ago
  Is it? What's the connection between systemd and having a desktop?
  - ktm5j 9mo ago
    Read the article: "The second reason for dropping System V is that packages like GNOME and soon KDE's Plasma are building in requirements that require capabilities in systemd"
    - cf100clunk 9mo ago
      If GNOME and KDE were the only desktop solutions, your ''Read the article'' comment would be sensible.
- simoncion 9mo ago
  > It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd. Most Gentoo Linux desktop users disagree. In fact, OpenRC is the default in that distro. Having said that, I do expect that Gentoo has more manpower available than LFS.
  - ktm5j 9mo ago
    Maybe they're KDE users. I was under the impression that gnome requires it. FTA it sounds like KDE will soon too. Gentoo doesn't come with a desktop by default either, you have to emerge it, which might install systemd.. FTA: "The second reason for dropping System V is that packages like GNOME and soon KDE's Plasma are building in requirements that require capabilities in systemd"
jdub 9mo ago
LFS never had academic, educational, or pedagogical merit. It was always sheer faith that by doing enough busywork (except the truly difficult stuff), something might rub off. Maybe you learn some names of component parts. Components change.
- its_magic 9mo ago
  Could you expand on this comment please? (I don't think your viewpoint should be so rudely dismissed through downvoting and moving on.) What do you mean?
dark-star 9mo ago
The old versions of LFS are still available to satisfy your curiosity. Someone should probably save the required source package versions (and patches) before they disappear though

acdha 9mo ago

SysV was this weird blind spot for many years. I remember installing daemontools on the OpenBSD server my office ran on because it was nicer to work with, and thinking that the Linux world would switch to avoid losing that particular feature war with Windows.

simoncion 9mo ago
Gentoo Linux has been using OpenRC for at least as long as I've been using it (~25 years). It's unfortunate that OpenRC was unable to summon the manpower to do the spot-additions required for it to win the political war way back when Debian was looking to move from straight SysV init.
- its_magic 9mo ago
  It would have never happened. Systemd wasn't chosen because "we the people" chose it. Things don't work like that anymore, regardless of what the marketing brochure might say.

kmeisthax 9mo ago

It's always a little amusing when the Open Source Tea Party bemoans the lack of "the UNIX way" and someone else with actual historical experience (and not misguided nostalgia) brings perspective. On a related note, X11 was never good and there's a whole chapter in the UNIX-HATERS Handbook explaining why.

its_magic 9mo ago
It was never good? Weird. Works fine for me. When will Wayland earn the label "good"? I don't think it currently qualifies.
- kmeisthax 9mo ago
  It works fine for you because... 1. You're using X11 with hardware that is fantastically newer than anything available at the time the UNIX-HATERS Handbook was written. 2. Every graphics vendor that still supports X11 is shipping workarounds for bugs in Xorg. I used to have a citation for that second one but it went away when Hector Martin dropped off the face of the Internet.