On Sat, 27 May 2017 14:37:11 -0400
zap <calmstorm@???> wrote:

> On 05/27/2017 02:33 PM, Steve Litt wrote:

> > My personal opinion is rather than packaging runit, s6, Epoch and
> > the like, we should document a preferred way to install them in
> > Devuan. I can help. And if they ever do get packaged, I hope the
> > hell their packages don't de-install each other.

> To be honest, whatever is the most stable, secure should be the
> default init, and if the init is easy to setup, good that's a plus!
> if its hard, still go with it because runit is easy to setup. if
> need be. of course don't make another systemd fiasco either with a
> different init, but regardless, those are my thoughts.

It would be impossible to create another systemd fiasco with runit, s6,
Epoch, sysvinit, OpenRC, or even Suckless Init + daemontools-encore +
LittKit, because all of those have simple architectures with
interchangeable parts. Systemd is a pathological special case caused by
its invasive architecture with no respect for encapsulation or
interchangeable parts.

You have to try very hard to create something as pathological as
systemd. Its architecture is so complex, entangled and monolithic, as
to make the debug portion of development impossible for a single person
or a tiny development team. Creating and maintaining a monstrosity like
systemd requires a hugely funded full time crew.

SteveT

Steve Litt
May 2017 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28