On 9/3/19 3:28 PM, Bruce Hill via lfs-dev wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 12:39:18PM +0800, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote:
Actually, as one of the people who strived to get away from the
default package ordering (more or less alphabetcial once a core
set of packages had been installed) when the SysV and SysD
books started to diverge, yes I am aware of that.
This seemed an open opportunity for one who has worked on distributions using
"SysV-style init" (from UNIX System V), BSD-style, OpenRC, and now systemd, to
post a couple of historical links [1,2]. Not just used, but tested, built, and
maintained packages for 2 distros. When systemd was first announced, the BDFL
taught me to hate it. When Linus went off on Lennart and Kay on LKML, I hoped
systemd would die as did HAL. The reason it's caused so much strife has less
to do with the design of systemd, I think. Rather, the fact that many people
have used nothing other than SysV init (which, apart from the inittab
handling, is just awful) and been contemplating their navels.
Well, I in contrary think that systemd is in fact faulty by design. It
is probably one of the best examples of over-engineering and solves too
many non-existent problems in one big pile of crap.
I'll take OpenRC over SysV-style init any day of the week, though. SysV is a
nightmare. But now that my mind is open to systemd, it has been surprising to
find that everything in systemd is properly documented.
After now having had the displeasure to manage systems with systemd, I
can confidently say that I hate it even more than before.
And as for sysv init being a nightmare, I really don't get that. I
always hated the fact that you had to manually manage run-level symlinks
yourself, but since I use initd-tools, even that problem is long gone.
sysv init is doing its job extremely well, is not bloated and easily
understandable. Still very pleased with it.
Bye
Tim
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
