On Thursday, 29 September 2016 8:26:07 PM AEST Rick Moen via luv-main wrote:
I've written a description of how to (very easily) convert Debian 8 'Jessie' over to OpenRC -- or to runit, sysvinit, or upstart, all of those available packaged in Debian 8 -- and make that architecture decision persist. It turned out to be very easy. Actually I wrote the basic details on this mailing list, in response to a question about that. Later, I fleshed out the topic for my Web site: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Debian/openrc-conversion.html
Yes, you can do that. It's much easier than creating a new web site for a new "distribution" which seems to be Debian with a few packages changed.
We had a "debate" about the relative merits of the various init systems on this list some time ago. It turned out that only one of the people who were criticising systemd had actually used it, and that person wasn't making the more extreme criticisms.
Both on this mailing list and on your blog, you seem obsessed with, in effect, calling some set of unnamed but broadly scoped critics names, e.g., that they're just flamers, misogynistic, homophobic, and driven by hostility and hate.
It's what I see. I am happy for people to document how to not use systemd and I don't flame anyone for doing so. Why do they flame me and others for describing how to use systemd?
I'm sure you're aware that this variety of rhetoric suffers a rather serious 'if so, so what?' problem (residing somewhere among the
It's "if so don't deal with those people" as so many people have done. There are more than a few DDs who have nothing to do with SysVInit because of the people who they have to deal with if they choose to do so. Why go to the effort of supporting software if there is a better alternative that has the added benefit of avoiding assholes? To be fair the haters have had some success in making developers cease contributing to systemd. But as systemd isn't the project that lacks developer support they aren't winning with this tactic.
In your more _charitable_ moments, you've been known to dismiss being fond of something other than systemd as mere conservatism -- relying on, among other things, the false assumption that anything else is backwards. A point I'll get to in a moment. However, I did want to stop here and praise the 'mere conservatism' rhetoric as at least not the total non-sequitur fallacy that the name-calling is. ;->
There's nothing wrong with being a bit "conservative" in the dictionary sense (IE not the Trump or Abbott sense). Being conservative in such ways is why we have had SysVInit for so long. But really we need more features nowadays.
Anyway, thank heavens, Unix open source offers a smorgasbord of worthwhile options in the software categories in question. Here is a partial list:
init systems: systemd, Upstart, Epoch, finit, SysVinit, initng, runit, s6, OpenRC, BSD init, nosh.
Upstart is no longer the default for Ubuntu, I guess it's future isn't that good.
My current idea of a good system composite is a really tiny, minimal PID1 (leaning towards BusyBox[1]) spawning OpenRC as the init system. If I ever actually need service supervision, I'd probably use runit or supervisord on whatever daemons merit such supervision.
If you want a tiny minimal init then having one that is linked with cp, mv, etc probably isn't the way to go. It would be ideal if the Busybox build system supported splitting some utilities out into separate binaries.
Yes, having process supervision in PID1 is the only way for total process control to be possible, but I don't have any use-cases where that is actually needed.
The PID1 program could reap processes and then inform the supervision process about it.
And socket activation is actually a big dumb bad idea as we know from initd/xinetd, but available with sundry toolkits if you actually want it.
Why? inetd always worked well for what it did.
(And if I'm a misogynist, you'll need to account for my N.O.W. card, http://now.org/ , being older than you are. Do you want to start claiming I'm not a feminist, again? Because that was really funny the last time, so I'd love to do it again.)
https://lists.luv.asn.au/pipermail/luv-talk/2014-April/002582.html Above is the post by Tim Josling that started the discussion you reference. https://lists.luv.asn.au/pipermail/luv-talk/2014-April/002600.html Above is one of my responses where I provide some background on Roosh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosh_V#United_States Roosh has used the Trump "satire" defense about his claims that rape should be legalised. Whenever I see a man claiming to be a feminist it usually seems to be in the context of criticising women or protecting men who do misogynistic things (like Tim Josling posting the Return of Kings article to the luv-talk list). I think that men who are so desperate to call themselves feminists should think about why they feel the need for that title. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/