On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Forking hundreds of shell instances for doing simple things like string > substitution isn't efficient. It's a brain-dead design.
That was a limitation of the shell that was fixed over a decade before systemd came along. I could not find a weaker justification for tossing out sysvinit if I tried. > Anyone who thinks that sysvinit is the original Unix design has never > used an original Unix. sysvinit has always been a hack. > This really is a straw man. No one claimed that sysvinit was anything more than the lesser evil. Anyway, attacking/defending sysvinit is boring. Far more useful is to consider the design decisions made by Ubuntu in upstart, by Apple in lunchd, by Sun in SMF, by Gentoo in OpenRC, etc. That's interesting because the comparison with systemd tells us something about how Red Hat operates. -- > Adrian > >
