Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal
>Plus sysvinit support isn't
>forever, since eventually it will be deprecated as more and more parts
>of the system drop support for it.
Why? There is nothing wrong with sysv init for most of us.
Why is there insistance (or seemingly triumphal predictions)
that those of us who are happy with the status quo ante bellum
(aka: *NIX) be left out in the cold.
In Debian you can choose your file system during install.
You can choose if you want a desktop or server style of install
(different sets of packages).
You can choose your language. And all these are supported
yea after year after year, even hard things like language.
Yet we cannot have the same for system five init, in perpetuity,
like the rest? Sysv just has to "bit rot" away (it's made of wood?)
It usually doesn't need to be touched for years on end, because
it, like an SLR lens, just works, for decades, and if
allowed to simply continue to exist: a century, more.
It is stable, it does its job, it is simple.
Like a lens. Unless you go and destroy it, it will continue
to bend light long past you or I are dead.
I think that's the problem some people have with it:
they want to make their mark on linux, they see the init
system as a old and thus frail target to execute and replace.
For their own glory.
Sysvinit is old, but it is not frail. It is as solid as
any piece of software can possibly be, and it doesn't
require mutilation for the benefit and glory of some
new upstarts who were conceived 20 years into its reign.
Thus it needs to be murdered apparently, and all of us
who know it, appreciate it, have our knowlge based on it
and other parts of traditional unix,
well we can go into the grave with it apparently.
Reply to: