3 ms·
In looking the table of contents of both editions, it seems that the only high level differences are in the exchange of sysvinit and systemd. Both serve the sam
by uxp 12y ago
In looking the table of contents of both editions, it seems that the only high level differences are in the exchange of sysvinit and systemd. Both serve the same purpose, but the implementation is different. If LFS made a BSD init version, then I would expect a forked edition as well. At first it feels more political than technical, but since the underlying configuration files are going to be vastly different, it makes complete sense. I don't even understand how this could be construed as an argument for either side.
- digi_owl 12y agoA couple of differences is that the systemd version lists dbus, and the classic version lists eudev and syslogd. Their reason for adopting eudev had something to do with the problems of automating the extraction of udev from the larger systemd source, iirc.