On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:44:56PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:19:12PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> > Then you can provide any other alternative definition of "init
> > system", but if there is no procedure that does those things for you,
> > then you have to manually do those tasks, at each reboot. In that case
> > the 12-lines init might just spawn a shell
>
> Why would you even need a separate process to spawn the shell? /bin/bash is
> a perfectly capable init that can reap zombies, start processes, do any
> interactive tasks, or be automated (.bashrc, trap EXIT, etc).

...exactly, and that's why I remain convinced that writing a shell is
actually a far more instructive exercise than writing a 12-lines init
that calls rc to do all the work...

>
> Specifying init=/bin/bash via grub on the cmdline is a common rescue
> technique for systems with a broken init. Guess what init implementation
> needs to be rescued this way most often...
>

That's too harsh of you, Adam :D

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[     "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[       @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[     @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]