this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
256 points (98.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43947 readers
773 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I used Linux (and some Unix) before systemd was a thing and init scripts are jank. So much boilerplate and that was before things like proper isolation existed and other more modern features.
I don't understand why anyone would want that back.
A replacement of systemd with something else would be fine, but please no more init scripts and pointless run levels.
Upstart was fine. It does the parallel init thing without taking over the whole OS.
I almost forgot it existed. It was a slight improvement, but with a whole bunch of new problems (most notable race conditions which were never fixed) and it was made obsolete by systemd.
It was a good evolutionary step only used by Ubuntu iirc. It was better at that time than the previous init system, but not more than that and it never found wide adaption.
Yeah when systemd came out it was over a decade since I touched an init script. So the only difference to me was my computer booted up faster.