Re: comparison

From: Steve Litt <>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 07:45:47 -0400

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 04:05:29 -0700
James Powell <> wrote:

> I agree Laurent. Though, even though complete init+supervision
> systems like Runit exist, it's been nearly impossible to get a
> foothold with any alternatives to sysvinit and systemd effectively. I
> think one of the major setbacks has been the lack of ready-to-use
> script sets, like those included with OpenRC, various rehashes of
> sysvinit and bsdinit scripts, and systemd units just aren't there
> ready to go.
> Testing and trying to debug in house scripts is a pain and to be
> honest stalled our work with LFS a while back.
> Runit is one of the most complete alternatives out there, but if
> scripts are what is holding things back, why has this never been
> accurately addressed?
> -Jim

I think part of the difficulty of writing run scripts is there are two
different kinds of runscripts:

1) Simple system specific custom made run script.

2) Works everywhere, regardless of software constellation, one size
   fits all run script.

Distros and packages and "upstreams" make #2, which are very, very,
very difficult. In my Suckless Init plus daemontools-encore adventure,
I had a 200+ line "one size fits all" sysvinit init script degenerate
into a less than 20 line system specific daemontools-encore run script.

Personally, if I were a Linux distribution script maker, at the very
least I would assume I'm working with the Linux kernel and the "stuff"
provided by the distro release for which the script was made. That
would cut down on a lot of the tl;dr cotton candy.


Steve Litt
June 2015 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence
Received on Tue Jun 16 2015 - 11:45:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC