Re: what was broken with sysvinit? some thoughts on initialization "systems"

[Neal Murphy <neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu>]

On Sunday, July 06, 2014 10:19:33 PM Joel Rees wrote:
> It took me several years (and playing with MSWindows's Wrong Way To Get It
> Right) to see that ad-hoc nature of sysvinit was, indeed, a feature, not a
> bug.

SysV init was a feature of the first computer I bought for my own use decades 
ago; I've been using it ever since. I do believe I'll dump Linux before I ever 
consider using an opaque, tentacled thing like systemd.

I still think SysV and its inittab could be enhanced to control hierarchies of 
daemons without introducing incomprehensible syntax and file structure that 
abstracts away all chance of human understanding via several layers of 
indirection. No one's done it because it would break compatibility with 
traditional SysV init (and I've other fish to fry).

N