Thread

1. seany · 1789757209 · focus · HN ↗

   We had reasonable building blocks before systemd...

   1. rezonant · 1789759150 · focus · HN ↗

      I think we just have different ideas of what the word "reasonable" means.

      1. Joker_vD · 1789759997 · focus · HN ↗

         Upstart was reasonable. So is OpenRC.
      2. egorfine · 1789760226 · focus · HN ↗

         I don't think anyone seriously defends sysvinit.

         However upstart was totally reasonable.

         1. pocksuppet · 1790033250 · focus · HN ↗

            Nobody even uses sysvinit. When people say they use sysvinit, they actually mean a pile of ad-hoc shell scripts that have no relationship to sysvinit.

            1. egorfine · 1790197131 · focus · HN ↗

               Fair point.
      3. throw0101a · 1789773651 · focus · HN ↗

         > I think we just have different ideas of what the word "reasonable" means.

         I think we just have different ideas of what the term "building blocks" means.

         You cannot add (or remove) part of systemD as you wish: on a Linux system I cannot replace journald with something, and I cannot bring journald over to FreeBSD. SystemD is tightly-coupled (heck, they even borg'd in udevd, which was an independent project at one point).

         Building blocks in my mind are like Legos: you can put together the thing you see on the box, but the individual (literal) blocks can be used however you wish.

         1. mkeedlinger · 1789783150 · focus · HN ↗

            This is the best point I’ve heard for this perspective.

            I guess I just never cared to actually LEGO much with Linux.

      4. seany · 1790020365 · focus · HN ↗

         an init system that is just an init system. _That's it_. Any other option is unreasonable.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.