|
|
|
|
|
by uselessdguy
4254 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.