[dark-star]

So... you can remove systemd and replace it with a few shell scripts? Isn't this, like, pretty well-known?

Or maybe I didn't get the point of this. It doesn't look to me like this is one of the regular rants against how systemd destroys everything. But I could be wrong about that?

[tapoxi]

Busybox is designed for extremely minimalist and embedded use cases, so they have a legitimate reason for avoiding systemd as a dependency.

[dark-star]

yes, I know, but the linked page does it on a Fedora Desktop system. Not exactly what anyone would use for a stripped down embedded system

[bryango]

I don't think the author intends to provide a serious production solution, at least not for now.

     Runit tools in busybox - up to the task?

    Let's test busybox's runit applets in a hypothetical ;) scenario
    when someone needs to stop running, say, systemd on, say, a Fedora machine.

    No doubt this will expose various shortcomings.

To me, This just seems like a fun experiment to demonstrate busybox's capabilities.

[ksp-atlas]

I made a small busybox based statically compiled distro which used busybox init, busybox init is basically just a bunch of shell scripts

[megous]

Busybox init is a binary. It can run anything (based on /etc/inittab) incl. other binaries. There's no need for it to run shell scripts (other than /etc/inittab lines which are executed under `sh -c "..."`).

[klysm]

You can make similarly small deployments with systemd. I’m not sure it’s that legitimate