[SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

WEBDEVDESTROYER2000 · Yesterday 15:11:27

Sysvinit is quite old, so why hasn't it been abandoned in favor of another init system such as dinit? Just asking, not stating that sysvinit SHOULD be removed.

golinux · Yesterday 16:18:29

If it works, don't fix it. Shiny new s**t just stirs the pot and is a waste of time and resources IMO.

WEBDEVDESTROYER2000 · Yesterday 16:31:39

If it works, don't fix it. Shiny new s**t just stirs the pot and is a waste of time and resources IMO.

I see your point 100%. But I imagine that due to its age, sysvinit could lead to security vulnerabilities and just horrible bugs in general. If that ever is the case, will sysvinit ever be dropped or will it forever remain the main init system for Devuan?

golinux · Yesterday 16:43:34

Now I get your nic. Hopefully you'll grow up some day .

WEBDEVDESTROYER2000 · Yesterday 16:51:45

Now I get your nic. Hopefully you'll grow up some day .

Rude.

Ron · Yesterday 18:13:31

WEBDEVDESTROYER2000 wrote:

But I imagine that due to its age, sysvinit could lead to security vulnerabilities and just horrible bugs in general.

My question is why would you think this? "Age" doesn't matter two hoots. It's no more vulnerable to threats than systemd. Actually, by nature it's more secure.

EDX-0 · Yesterday 23:04:36

in spite of being older than linux sysvinit is very small and the code has been refined for the last 40+ years since the release of the original at&t unix systmem v, it does so little and so well that trying to find a vulnerability or a horrible bug is a challenge nowadays

steve_v · Today 01:47:51

WEBDEVDESTROYER2000 wrote:

Rude.

Yeah, very professional and welcoming admins we have here.
Bear in mind golinux has essentially no idea what they're talking about on a technical level, so being an obnoxious twat is the default response to anything that threatens to stray away from ideological dogma and into practical discussion.

Ron wrote:

"Age" doesn't matter two hoots.

Indeed... But that does cut both ways.
Sysv isn't "bad" because it's old, but simply being old doesn't make it good (or even necessarily "refined") either.
The more relevant question is whether or not it is suitable for current requirements. Religious wars aside, if the plethora of alternatives and repeated attempts to replace it are anything to go by, that's very much up for debate.

Ron wrote:

no more vulnerable to threats than systemd.

What does systemd have to do with anything? OP didn't even mention that particular option.

Ron wrote:

by nature it's more secure

Almost entirely because it does less. A more fair comparison (assuming more features are actually wanted, but that's a separate argument) would be sysvinit vs. $other_init stripped down to comparable functionality, or $other_init vs. sysvinit + all the daemons needed to achieve feature parity.

EDX-0 wrote:

it does so little and so well

Sure... But there's also a valid argument in that it does too little. Take the unholy mess of shell scripts Debian ships and the various bolt-on service ordering/dependency hacks (e.g. insserv) for example... That's where all the bugs and borkage are, not in sysv itself.

EDX-0 · Today 06:09:10

well yeh there's an argument of sysvinit doing too little, but that is also what allows/requires to just build the features on top as separate programs... werether that is a good or a bad thing should be the real argument, on one side if you don't like the way one of those components work you can just easily build your own and replace the original, on the other hand it means that the components on top of sysvinit have to be maintained apart from it and a single set of libraries containing re-usable function cannot be easily made for all components of debian's enhaced sysvinit... you can't have your cake and eat it too, everything is balancing the downsides.

Dutch_Master · Today 07:34:16

SysV init is the product of the *nix philosophy: build one tool for one job and make it the absolute best at that job. Systemd clearly doesn't, it essentially windowsifies the Linux init system by locking the kernel to itself: the kernel no longer communicates with various tools, it just communicates with systemd, period. Win-OS works the same way. Remember, the bloke that wrote systemd and still has ultimate say in it now works at M$

For an aspiring S/W dev, first dive into the existing eco system and understand what and why things are done that way before commenting (rudely) at persons and/or software

EDX-0 · Today 07:50:58

don't worry, the way we do things here at the dev1 forum is read as little as possible then hit back as rudely as one can with as much ignorance as can be mustered innit

steve_v · Today 08:02:53

Dutch_Master wrote:

windowsifies the Linux init system by locking the kernel to itself: the kernel no longer communicates with various tools, it just communicates with systemd, period.

That's not even remotely how any of this works.
Init, whatever it may be, is a userspace program and interacts with kernel facilities the same way any other userspace program does (i.e. mostly via libc, or using public kernel ABIs).
No init links directly against the kernel or "locks" anything, and the claim that systemd somehow prevents the kernel "communicating" with "various tools" is completely ridiculous.

Can we really not discuss init systems in here without resorting to irrelevant, misinformed systemd FUD? Systemd wasn't even mentioned in the OP, the question is why we aren't exploring a switch to one of the other options.

blackhole · Today 12:44:58

sysvinit is still maintained. Until it's no longer maintained, it will still be around. Is it any good? Is anything? Is vi any good if you love emacs? It worked for years, it was versatile and you had the freedom to use it or not - and if you wanted e.g. service supervision, you installed and configured something to do that.

You could say the same for C - it's ancient, but still used for all meaningul systems programming. Other languages have come and gone, some have lingered around, but theyre used for application programming. Look at Qt for example, it's written in C++. Also there's the likes of C#, java and (I hesitate to mention it) rust. It took over 30 years to get the Linux kernel and BSD kernels to get to where they are now. Similar with the NT kernel. No one is going to commit commercial suicide and rewrite these in the latest fad language. It's the same with sysvinit - you can write as many init replacements as you like, but unless one comes along with clear technical merits which leads to widespread adoption, people won't switch. That's why the corporate backers of systemd used a clear strategy of funding/hiring to get distributions to move - to a solution which, at the time, wasn't very mature and had an awful lot of issues.

One of the pillars of free software used to be freedom of choice - so someone could work on a project, they and others could use the result, without people calling for it's obsolescence or sneering. The corporations had a lot of willing useful idiots to assist with this.

Last edited by blackhole (Today 12:45:46)

Andre4freedom · Today 14:10:14

Devuan gave us a choice back: to have decent init systems. I thank them for that.
Anyone who knows what UNIX was, from the beginning to the end, can only appreciate a decent, well developed and transparent init system.
Sysvinit is certainly one of them. There are multiple init programs around now, and some of them are good as well. I mostly work with OpenRC, but I'm happy to come back to sysvinit for some cases.
Long live these rock-solid solutions, and a great thank-you to Devuan to have freed us from systemd and given us choices back. Right, why should anyone want to eliminate foundation-stones like vi, emacs, sh / bash, sysvinit, C, C++ etc?

rolfie · Today 14:22:30

sysvinit just does its job. I have been using OpenRC when I started with Devuan on ASCII. I have moved back to sysvinit nowadays on new installations since I did not see any advantages as a user from using OpenRC.

greenjeans · Today 14:38:34

so being an obnoxious t**t

That kind of language is not called for, especially when speaking of a lady, regardless of what she said, it's just not okay Steve.

Altoid · Today 18:16:55

Hello:

greenjeans wrote:

That kind of language is not called for ...

+1

A.

Altoid · Today 18:24:41

Hello:

rolfie wrote:

sysvinit just does its job.

I have yet to find a logical explanation for the actual benefits of using anything but the default sysvinit in a Devuan desktop box.

A.

golinux · Today 19:42:08

Awww . . . thanks greenjeans and Altoid but I'm not sure for what because I gave up reading steve-v's abusive, fantasy-filled tirades a long time ago. I am so removed from the low-life "culture" in which he swims that the insults he churns out would likely go right over my head. I want to associate with the best of the best not the dregs of our devolving species.

The officially official Devuan Forum!

#1 Yesterday 15:11:27

[SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#2 Yesterday 16:18:29

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#3 Yesterday 16:31:39

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#4 Yesterday 16:43:34

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#5 Yesterday 16:51:45

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#6 Yesterday 18:13:31

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#7 Yesterday 23:04:36

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#8 Today 01:47:51

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#9 Today 06:09:10

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#10 Today 07:34:16

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#11 Today 07:50:58

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#12 Today 08:02:53

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#13 Today 12:44:58

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#14 Today 14:10:14

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#15 Today 14:22:30

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#16 Today 14:38:34

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#17 Today 18:16:55

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#18 Today 18:24:41

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

#19 Today 19:42:08

Re: [SOLVED] Why hasn't sysvinit been abandoned yet?

Board footer