Steve Litt <slitt@???> writes:
> al3xu5 via Dng said on Wed, 15 May 2024 08:59:49 +0200
>
>>Wed, 15 May 2024 02:10:14 -0400 - Steve Litt
>><slitt@???>:
>
>>> I didn't know about startpar. Thanks for the info. If startpar
>>> existed and worked in January 2014, it eliminated any excuse the
>>> "dd's" had for switching to systemd.
>>
>>It has been separated from sysvinit-tools at Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:15:02
>>+0100, which means it already existed before...
>>https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/s/startpar/startpar_0.65-1_changelog
>
> In other words, poettering and the dds KNEW you could do (feature name
> parallel-instantiation) with sysvinit, but withheld this info from the
> general public and in fact lied ("you need systemd to do
> parallel-instantiation"). When Don Armstrong cast his bragged about
> tie-breaking vote for systemd, and before he removed posting rights
> from me and many others, he knew this was a lie. Now I'm really
> pissed.

I remember to have written this a couple of times here and in other
places but nobody was willing to believe me ...

> This puts sysvinit in a better light. Combine this with the short init
> script Martin showed us, and my only remaining objection to sysvinit is
> that the daemons need to background themselves.

I have a 140 lines of code C program which handles this task I'm using
for all 'system service' packages I maintain for my employer. And this
tool could be smaller because it does a few things which aren't strictly
needed for creating a background tasks and could be provided by other
programs.