6 ms·

Runit is 5474 SLOCs. Most source files are shorter than 100 lines. Works like a charm. Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anythi

by nine_k 9mo ago

Runit is 5474 SLOCs. Most source files are shorter than 100 lines. Works like a charm. Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anything else. Systemd, by construction, is a set of Unix-replacing daemons. An ideal embedded system setup is kernel, systemd, and the containers it runs (even without podman). This makes sense, especially given the Red Hat's line of business, but it has little relation to the Unix design, or to learning how to do things from scratch.

binkHN 9mo ago
I use runit on my production workstation and don't think about it; it just works.
- BadBadJellyBean 9mo ago
  Same with systemd.
  - its_magic 9mo ago
    Except for all those who've accidentally blown their legs off with it, of course. Just ask the guy who bricked his motherboard due to a systemd bug where his firmware wasn't write protected and got destroyed by a 'rm -rf' command. lol
    - BadBadJellyBean 9mo ago
      No software is perfect. Not sysvinit (and it's bash scripts from different vendors), nor systemd. Errors happen. At least for me systemd is a net positive.
      - its_magic 9mo ago
        > No software is perfect Especially when it's a giant blob of buggy C code written by a known hack who has multiple decades' worth of history of foisting shit code upon a less than enthused public. > At least for me systemd is a net positive For the moment. Just wait until it finds a way to fuck you. It's plotting and scheming behind your back to do so as we speak. Systemd for some reason seems to uniquely be the epicenter of giant facepalm bugs like LEAVING THE SYSTEM FIRMWARE VULNERABLE TO AN RM -RF COMMAND, a situation which causes alarm to none of the systemd crowd. They just shrug if off. "What's the big deal? I don't get it," they say. I used to see the same mentality from Microsoft people back in the day. "Why would you use Linux? I don't get it. Windows is fine." It's because you lack standards. You're completely used to being surrounded by software and hardware that is Fucking Garbage. Everything is like that in your world. You're happier than a pig in shit, oblivious.
        NekkoDroid 9mo ago
        > Systemd for some reason seems to uniquely be the epicenter of giant facepalm bugs like LEAVING THE SYSTEM FIRMWARE VULNERABLE TO AN RM -RF COMMAND I am very sorry to inform you but efivarfs is something coming from the Linux kernel. Being able to rm -rf it is squarely something that is entirely on the kernel implementation, WHICH THE AUTHOR OF EFIVARFS EVEN ADMITS[0] [0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/978640/ https://lwn.net/Articles/978640/
        its_magic 9mo ago
        Thanks for the correction. Yes, I have my bone to pick with the Linux kernel too on many different fronts. #facepalm
p_ing 9mo ago
> but it has little relation to the Unix design It's more like Windows! /duck
- its_magic 9mo ago
  I have been saying for years that Microsoft would eventually deprecate WinNT and switch Windows over to a Linux foundation. Things seem to be slowly but continually moving in that direction.
  - p_ing 9mo ago
    Makes no sense to dump a superior kernel and executive for Linux. The Win32 layer is the issue, not the underbelly.
    - its_magic 9mo ago
      They might use the NT kernel and their own version of the Linux userland. I'd be open to the idea, if the kernel were open sourced (MIT licensed?) so I could play with it too.
      - p_ing 9mo ago
        Why do that when Win32 is what everyone wants? We’ve already had NT + Linux userland; that was WSLv1.
        its_magic 9mo ago
        I think if we're talking about "what everyone wants", Windows 11 obviously isn't it, so that's not necessarily the driving force here.
        p_ing 9mo ago
        As I said, everyone wants Win32. What flavor is up to debate, everyone has their own incorrect opinions.
pjmlp 9mo ago
I love how people worship UNIX design in Linux circles, especially when complaining about decisions where Linux is catching up with commercial UNIXes, as in the init systems replacements. UNIX design was so great that its authors did two other operating systems trying to make UNIX done right. One of the few times I agree with Rob Pike, > We really are using a 1970s era operating system well past its sell-by date. We get a lot done, and we have fun, but let's face it, the fundamental design of Unix is older than many of the readers of Slashdot, while lots of different, great ideas about computing and networks have been developed in the last 30 years. Using Unix is the computing equivalent of listening only to music by David Cassidy.
- rusk 9mo ago
  > We really are using a 1970s era 1970 Anno Domini no less
  - pjmlp 9mo ago
    Making it even more so of a religion. UNIX is only an OS with some good ideas, and also plenty of bad ones. No reason to stick with it ad eternum as some kind of holy scriptures.
    - donkeybeer 9mo ago
      It's "problem" unfortunately is that it happens to be the only major foss os. If there were other foss oses with good support and "better" models I'd gladly try them out. I know I personally would never switch to any non foss os after the user friendliness I have experienced. I would say that's the main reason many stick to it, including game theoretic arguments for commercial players also. Not because people like to stick to ancient models. It's not a ideal system obviously but going back to locked down crap is a no go for me and perhaps many others. BSDs are ok too but the suicidal licensing makes me less inclined.
      - Gud 9mo ago
        What’s suicidal about the BSD license? BSD code is everywhere
jorvi 9mo ago
> Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anything else Neither does systemd its init. Unknowledgeable people keep confusing systemd the init and systemd the daemon / utility suite. You can use just the init system without pulling in resolved or networkd or whatever. Systemd is the Unix philosophy of lots of modularity. But because all the systemd daemons come from the same shop, you get a lot of creature comforts if you use them together. Nothing bad about that.
- cf100clunk 9mo ago
  > because all the systemd daemons come from the same shop, you get a lot of creature comforts if you use them together. Nothing bad about that. That's how vendor lock-in works, in which a myth is propagated that having it all come from under one roof is best. In fact, it is a guarantee that best-of-breed alternative solutions cannot be used. Interoperability is thwarted. This is why sensible Unix admins historically knew to keep options open for mixed-vendor sourcing as long as the bosses didn't get roped in to a single vendor or source.
  - jorvi 9mo ago
    Okay, so you code the features that dnsmasq is missing that resolved has. Or pay someone to do it. I promise you systemd does not have special verification protocols that stop you from interfacing with certain features. This isn't Apple. Think about it, you can't obligate the systemd folks to maintain codebases that aren't theirs.. would be madness.
NoGravitas 9mo ago
One might almost say a Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons.
ChocolateGod 9mo ago
> Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anything else. You're confusing systemd the init manager and systemd the project. systemd as an init system only "replaces" initd, syslog and udev. All other components under the systemd project are optional and not required, nor is there any push to make them required.
- RTX713 9mo ago
  >"All other components under the systemd project are optional and not required" Name two major distros that use 'systemd init system' but doesn't use the other parts.

by nine_k 9mo ago

binkHN 9mo ago

I use runit on my production workstation and don't think about it; it just works.

BadBadJellyBean 9mo ago
Same with systemd.
- its_magic 9mo ago
  Except for all those who've accidentally blown their legs off with it, of course. Just ask the guy who bricked his motherboard due to a systemd bug where his firmware wasn't write protected and got destroyed by a 'rm -rf' command. lol
  - BadBadJellyBean 9mo ago
    No software is perfect. Not sysvinit (and it's bash scripts from different vendors), nor systemd. Errors happen. At least for me systemd is a net positive.
    - its_magic 9mo ago
      > No software is perfect Especially when it's a giant blob of buggy C code written by a known hack who has multiple decades' worth of history of foisting shit code upon a less than enthused public. > At least for me systemd is a net positive For the moment. Just wait until it finds a way to fuck you. It's plotting and scheming behind your back to do so as we speak. Systemd for some reason seems to uniquely be the epicenter of giant facepalm bugs like LEAVING THE SYSTEM FIRMWARE VULNERABLE TO AN RM -RF COMMAND, a situation which causes alarm to none of the systemd crowd. They just shrug if off. "What's the big deal? I don't get it," they say. I used to see the same mentality from Microsoft people back in the day. "Why would you use Linux? I don't get it. Windows is fine." It's because you lack standards. You're completely used to being surrounded by software and hardware that is Fucking Garbage. Everything is like that in your world. You're happier than a pig in shit, oblivious.
      - NekkoDroid 9mo ago
        > Systemd for some reason seems to uniquely be the epicenter of giant facepalm bugs like LEAVING THE SYSTEM FIRMWARE VULNERABLE TO AN RM -RF COMMAND I am very sorry to inform you but efivarfs is something coming from the Linux kernel. Being able to rm -rf it is squarely something that is entirely on the kernel implementation, WHICH THE AUTHOR OF EFIVARFS EVEN ADMITS[0] [0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/978640/ https://lwn.net/Articles/978640/
        its_magic 9mo ago
        Thanks for the correction. Yes, I have my bone to pick with the Linux kernel too on many different fronts. #facepalm

p_ing 9mo ago

> but it has little relation to the Unix design It's more like Windows! /duck

its_magic 9mo ago
I have been saying for years that Microsoft would eventually deprecate WinNT and switch Windows over to a Linux foundation. Things seem to be slowly but continually moving in that direction.
- p_ing 9mo ago
  Makes no sense to dump a superior kernel and executive for Linux. The Win32 layer is the issue, not the underbelly.
  - its_magic 9mo ago
    They might use the NT kernel and their own version of the Linux userland. I'd be open to the idea, if the kernel were open sourced (MIT licensed?) so I could play with it too.
    - p_ing 9mo ago
      Why do that when Win32 is what everyone wants? We’ve already had NT + Linux userland; that was WSLv1.
      - its_magic 9mo ago
        I think if we're talking about "what everyone wants", Windows 11 obviously isn't it, so that's not necessarily the driving force here.
        p_ing 9mo ago
        As I said, everyone wants Win32. What flavor is up to debate, everyone has their own incorrect opinions.

pjmlp 9mo ago

I love how people worship UNIX design in Linux circles, especially when complaining about decisions where Linux is catching up with commercial UNIXes, as in the init systems replacements. UNIX design was so great that its authors did two other operating systems trying to make UNIX done right. One of the few times I agree with Rob Pike, > We really are using a 1970s era operating system well past its sell-by date. We get a lot done, and we have fun, but let's face it, the fundamental design of Unix is older than many of the readers of Slashdot, while lots of different, great ideas about computing and networks have been developed in the last 30 years. Using Unix is the computing equivalent of listening only to music by David Cassidy.

rusk 9mo ago
> We really are using a 1970s era 1970 Anno Domini no less
- pjmlp 9mo ago
  Making it even more so of a religion. UNIX is only an OS with some good ideas, and also plenty of bad ones. No reason to stick with it ad eternum as some kind of holy scriptures.
  - donkeybeer 9mo ago
    It's "problem" unfortunately is that it happens to be the only major foss os. If there were other foss oses with good support and "better" models I'd gladly try them out. I know I personally would never switch to any non foss os after the user friendliness I have experienced. I would say that's the main reason many stick to it, including game theoretic arguments for commercial players also. Not because people like to stick to ancient models. It's not a ideal system obviously but going back to locked down crap is a no go for me and perhaps many others. BSDs are ok too but the suicidal licensing makes me less inclined.
    - Gud 9mo ago
      What’s suicidal about the BSD license? BSD code is everywhere

jorvi 9mo ago

> Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anything else Neither does systemd its init. Unknowledgeable people keep confusing systemd the init and systemd the daemon / utility suite. You can use just the init system without pulling in resolved or networkd or whatever. Systemd is the Unix philosophy of lots of modularity. But because all the systemd daemons come from the same shop, you get a lot of creature comforts if you use them together. Nothing bad about that.

cf100clunk 9mo ago
> because all the systemd daemons come from the same shop, you get a lot of creature comforts if you use them together. Nothing bad about that. That's how vendor lock-in works, in which a myth is propagated that having it all come from under one roof is best. In fact, it is a guarantee that best-of-breed alternative solutions cannot be used. Interoperability is thwarted. This is why sensible Unix admins historically knew to keep options open for mixed-vendor sourcing as long as the bosses didn't get roped in to a single vendor or source.
- jorvi 9mo ago
  Okay, so you code the features that dnsmasq is missing that resolved has. Or pay someone to do it. I promise you systemd does not have special verification protocols that stop you from interfacing with certain features. This isn't Apple. Think about it, you can't obligate the systemd folks to maintain codebases that aren't theirs.. would be madness.

NoGravitas 9mo ago

One might almost say a Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons.

ChocolateGod 9mo ago

> Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anything else. You're confusing systemd the init manager and systemd the project. systemd as an init system only "replaces" initd, syslog and udev. All other components under the systemd project are optional and not required, nor is there any push to make them required.

RTX713 9mo ago
>"All other components under the systemd project are optional and not required" Name two major distros that use 'systemd init system' but doesn't use the other parts.