Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along • Hacker News Board

Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along

#111

Post by api » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 12:12 AM UTC

e7620 wrote: post #105

api wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I use a dozen init systems, each for a different situation, and I'm interested in keeping it that way. You might like that, but it makes life hell for developers who write and package any kind of daemon/service.

Absolutely not, only if they depend on systemd. If they follow UNIX conventions, they don't need to edit a single file. Writing a daemon init script was a solved problem decades ago, and that script will serve for every init system.

Nope. Some systemd distros do not support daemon init scripts done the old way.

Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along

#112

Post by JdeBP » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 11:05 PM UTC

floatboth wrote: post #32

The referenced article that criticizes both SysV and BSD inits is from 2002. BSD systems have had separate scripts in a folder (rc.d) since, like, forever. And "[package installation] needs to edit one of the existing boot scripts" is the only criticism there. There might be more current issues, but I believe it's good enough. For example, BSD init doesn't have super web scale auto restarting and monitoring and log r…

That's an odd definition of "forever", there. NetBSD gained its rc.d system at the end of 2000, with the release of NetBSD 1.5. FreeBSD started porting work in 2001, and that carried on through 2002. FreeBSD 5.0 with rc.d was released in 2003. OpenBSD didn't get the rc.d system until version 4.9, released in 2011. Is just 3 years ago "forever" in World Wide Web time, now? If so, does that make the 11-year gap between NetBSD and OpenBSD "almost quadruple forever"? (-:

Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along

#113

Post by JdeBP » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 11:23 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #46

uselessdguy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they all largely did the same things that sysv did with a few bolt-on features. That is a total misrepresentation, I'm sorry. The fact is SysV was probably one of the weakest init systems around, besides deliberately minimal ones like busybox-init and sinit. I devoted the "sysvinit: the eternal red herring" section precisely to debunk that. I just want people to stop comparing everything to SysV, because it o…

I agree with you; my entire point that they were sysv with bolt-on features was to say that many of the alternate init systems really weren't very advanced and spent too much effort trying to replicate sysv for compatibility reasons when the entire thing should have been scrapped. Anyway, I think the pro-systemd folks often think that anti-systemd folks would react the same way to any init system that isn't sysv. Thi…

> ... spent too much effort trying to replicate sysv for compatibility reasons ...

This is wrong, too. Only upstart, systemd, and runit include any form of System V rc compatibility. (It's worth noting that no alternative system has implemented System V init compatibility.) None of the others do.