:: Re: [DNG] How long should I expect …
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: zap
Date:  
To: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] How long should I expect to wait for openrc to be ready in devuan ascii
It is a little too confusing trying to install openrc at the moment so I
will pass for now...

It is just a shame that the runit-init package was taken down...


On 06/30/2017 06:46 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 21:45:23 +0200
> Joachim Fahrner <jf@???> wrote:
>
>> Am 2017-06-30 19:16, schrieb Steve Litt:
>>
>>> Would it be possible for you to install OpenRC from upstream
>>> source? I know that's easily doable with runit or s6, but I know
>>> little about OpenRC.
>> I'm wondering why there are lots of discussions about init systems.
>> What is wrong with sysv init? My notebook is booting (from ssd)
>> within 8 seconds. Nothing I would complain about.
> sysvinit works, always has. It's a good, workable init system. And it's
> for certain better than systemd unless 99% of your priority is boot
> time.
>
> Now let me explain why I personally prefer runit instead of sysvinit...
>
> * sysvinit requires those gigantic and messy init scripts, whereas
> runit requires only a 10 line run script, give or take.
>
> * sysvinit depends on PID files that can make things go wrong in
> difficult to understand ways. Runit has no PID files.
>
> * With runit, if you write a daemon program, your daemon program
> doesn't need to background itself nor tell the init system that it's
> ready.
>
> * I find runit more adaptable to varied usages than sysvinit.
>
> * With runit, I can look in one directory and easily see all my
> daemons, with easy names that don't look like S50-whatever
>
> * Runit's sv command does all the stuff needed by the five mandatory
> sections of a sysvinit script.
>
> * Runit doesn't require the commented out special numbers and stuff
> that sysvinit init scripts do.
>
> * Runit is much less than thirty two years old. Although both you and I
> know sysvinit's age doesn't make it one micron less competent, it's
> much easier to argue that runit is better than systemd rather than
> arguing that sysvinit is better than systemd. This benefit, of
> course, is purely rhetoric and political, and in fact I think
> sysvinit is MUCH better than systemd.
>
> * It's really a matter of personal preference, and it's easy to switch
> between sysvinit and runit.
>
> By the way, everything I said about runit goes equally for the s6 init
> system.
>
>
>
>