[exelius]

Because they all largely did the same things that sysv did with a few bolt-on features. After many years, it's become apparent that approach won't work when you need multiple processes to be able to coordinate and schedule threads, power management, etc. Things need to be done at the hardware level, and sometimes those need to be triggered from user applications. But you can't have random applications tinkering in the kernel, so systemd arose and took over a number of those functions.

So I guess I can amend that to say "you can't have multiple init systems that do the things that systemd does".

[uselessdguy]

Because they all largely did the same things that sysv did with a few bolt-on features.

That is a total misrepresentation, I'm sorry. The fact is SysV was probably one of the weakest init systems around, besides deliberately minimal ones like busybox-init and sinit.

I devoted the "sysvinit: the eternal red herring" section precisely to debunk that. I just want people to stop comparing everything to SysV, because it only demonstrates that you're unwashed or closed-minded more than anything. The recent parody site forkfedora.org really aggravated me for that same reason. Instead of doing some witty response to the Debian fork stupidity, they just basically posted "LOL look at this SysV initscript, and now this systemd service file. Checkmate, systemd-haters!"

Much to my disappointment, people keep committing the same fallacies even when discussing an article meant to try and silence them at least this one time. I guess it only proves my point, I don't know.

[exelius]

I agree with you; my entire point that they were sysv with bolt-on features was to say that many of the alternate init systems really weren't very advanced and spent too much effort trying to replicate sysv for compatibility reasons when the entire thing should have been scrapped.

Anyway, I think the pro-systemd folks often think that anti-systemd folks would react the same way to any init system that isn't sysv. This is probably fair, because there haven't been many credible non-systemd alternatives to sysv.

[JdeBP]

> ... spent too much effort trying to replicate sysv for compatibility reasons ...

This is wrong, too. Only upstart, systemd, and runit include any form of System V rc compatibility. (It's worth noting that no alternative system has implemented System V init compatibility.) None of the others do.

[bkor]

The GR is specifically about keeping support for sysvinit around. So comparisons to that are entirely logical IMO. Note that I find the GR to be very vague. There's a post on Planet Debian to explain how to interpret it (jeez!).