> The people who prefer initv are the people who enjoy digging in other people’s (untestable) Bash scripts
This is demonstrably untrue. I strongly prefer SysV (which is not to say I think SysV is wonderful or anything) over systemD for a number of architectural and functional reasons.
But I do not enjoy digging into other people's init scripts. Fortunately, I rarely have to do that. I think the last time I had a problem with someone's init script was over 7 years ago.
Re:Linux distros without systemd
by dmitryminkovsky on Monday May 20, 2019 @11:53AM
(#19961689)
You're right. Bad generalization. Sentence removed, but archived in your comment.
Out of curiosity, what distros do you use that you've had such a good run with init scripts?
I currently use Debian on everything except my R-PIs, where I use Raspbian.
New installs of Debian use systemd by default. Systems which were upgraded from older releases may be grandfathered in to SysV init.
Systems which are freshly installed and want to change to sysvinit can do "sudo apt install sysvinit-core".
Or they can try out runit, openrc or nosh, if they feel adventurous. The last one is not yet in Debian proper.
The number of broken init scripts I have encountered throughout the years, that went unfixed for months if not years, stand in stark contrast to this statement. And I’m talking packages like uWSGI on Ubuntu 14.04! This is exactly why I gravitated immediately to systemd. The idea that init scripts actually worked and when they didn’t were easily fixable is not true. Yeah you can fix a broken script locally, but this doesn’t fly at scale n > 1. Submitting patches to distros is not a simple process, and not one that makes sense in this context either. Declarative beats imperative 9/10 times, and systemd is one of those 9.