[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ale] vi vs emacs?



Wow, I got kind of nasty and personal in my response. Jeffrey, I'm
sorry.

I hereby retract everything that implied Jeffrey was trying to fool
anyone or act as an agent for systemd.

Basically, all I *should* have said was that using the word "init" for
any specific init system in 2018 causes confusion,  and comparing
sysvinit to systemd, in the absence of all the other fine init systems
out there, is misleading.

And I should have also said to everyone, which I didn't, is that when
you see a comparison between systemd and sysvinit in absence of all the
other init systems, your first thought should be "OK, how bout runit,
s6, some of the minor daemontools-inspired inits, or OpenRC, or even
BusyBox init in special cases.

SteveT

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:28:54 -0500
Steve Litt via Ale <ale at ale.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:41:43 +0000
> "Lightner, Jeffrey via Ale" <ale at ale.org> wrote:
> 
> > I figure if folks are going to go on ad nauseum about init vs
> > systemd again   
> 
> False dilemma alert and misleading terminology alert:
> 
> "Init" is a generic term for, generally speaking but open to
> modification, the first process run by the kernel plus the system to
> configure and run all the daemons. Systemd is an init (plus some other
> stuff), so this might as well say "systemd vs systemd".
> 
> Before the invention of Upstart, >90% of all Linux machines used
> sysvinit for their init system, so some people just referred to it as
> "init". Some still do, but today such reference is misleading.
> 
> Assuming by "init" you meant "sysvinit", the system with /etc/inittab
> and tweaked-comment shellscripts in /etc/rc.d/init.d that can be
> symlinked in runlevels such as /etc/rc.d/rc5.d, "init vs systemd"
> implies a false choice that precludes runit, s6, Epoch, busybox init,
> as well as some excellent but less popular inits.
> 
> This matters. The justification of creating and force-feeding systemd
> always boiled down to "it's better than sysvinit or Upstart!" Even if
> I believed that assertion, so what: I'm stronger than Stephen Hawking
> and smarter than Mike Tyson.
> 
> Use of "init" to mean something to compare to systemd, or comparing
> sysvinit to systemd, are both fallacies used and useful in justifying
> systemd's existence and, shall we say, "marketing methods". Let's
> stick to the real costs and benefits of each init system.
>  
> SteveT
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo