Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00294.html

by waffle_ss • 12 years ago

233 146 12 years ago

lists.debian.org

Spittie4• 12 years ago

Those are the votes for systemd:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00294.html

https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00283.html

https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00297.html

https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00282.html

For anyone wondering, 4 votes are enough because Bdale's vote (the chairman of the Technical Committee) count as two votes in case of a draw.

EDIT: see this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7203479) comment below - if the other 4 members of the TC vote F, then systemd would not win.

mjn2• 12 years ago

Fwiw, the only other vote that's been cast so far, which is in the other direction (3 people haven't yet voted): https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00288.html

kbar13• 12 years ago

To be fair he is also the Ubuntu developer and upstart maintainer on the committee

jevinskie• 12 years ago

I agree with that vote. Since Debian is still committed to BSD, they aren't going to drop sysvint once the next-gen init system is in place.

shornlacuna3• 12 years ago

It's not quite as simple as that, because if all the remaining committee members vote F (further discussion) ahead of D (systemd) then D gets dropped before the casting vote stage (Debian constitution A.6.3).

So far one of the four remaining committee members has done this, another is expected to, leaving the decisions of the remaining two to determine whether the vote completes or not.

Spittie4• 12 years ago

Sorry for spreading misinformation, it seems that I got exited too soon. Still, I find somewhat unlikely that all the others member will vote F ahead of D.

Are you referring to the "Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort." paragraph of the Debian constitution? It's a bit cryptic for a non-native like me, so I'm not sure that I'm reading it right.

sluukkonen• 12 years ago

Looks like it's clear now. Colin Watson voted for Upstart[1], so systemd wins.

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00332.html

shornlacuna3• 12 years ago

Indeed. Note that the reason systemd wins is that Colin voted systemd ahead of further discussion, now defeating it with at least 5 votes from the 8. And then in the subsequent voting stage systemd has at least 4 votes + the chair's casting vote as per the above post.

norswap• 12 years ago

When you see how complex it all is, no wonder people make snide comments about committees.

rodgerd6• 12 years ago

Consider alternatives such as e.g. Mark Shuttleworth unilaterally commanding technology no-one else ends up using.

jarvic• 12 years ago

Everybody, get your popcorn: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00344.html

_wmd• 12 years ago

I wonder how long upstart will survive in Ubuntu after the next Debian stable

nixgeek• 12 years ago

Probably a while, Ubuntu isn't too prone to changing things just because Debian (upstream) decided to do something.

shimon_e• 12 years ago

Do you think ubuntu will be hiring package maintainers to rewrite all the init scripts so it can continue importing debian packages into universe?

mdeslaur• 12 years ago

Having Debian switch to systemd by default has no bearing on the preferred init system in Ubuntu.

jordigh3• 12 years ago

For a fun retelling of the events (I think this only works on Firefox):

http://aceattorney.sparklin.org/jeu.php?id_proces=57684

lmm2• 12 years ago

It works perfectly in chrome. I don't know what's with the obnoxious yellow banner - I thought firefox people were against the "best viewed in internet explorer" attitude.

bskap• 12 years ago

Works fine in IE 11 as well.

forgottenpass2• 12 years ago

I didn't know there was a block of "firefox people", or that everyone developing for firefox was a member and shared the opinions they have.

Where's their mailing list/forum?

Spittie4• 12 years ago

This is the second part: http://aceattorney.sparklin.org/jeu.php?id_proces=57899

enko2• 12 years ago

Unfortunately, the second part seems to get stuck in "cross examination" and it's impossible to continue.

mappu• 12 years ago

That was great, thank you!

vezzy-fnord• 12 years ago

That was incredible. How was the dialogue compiled? Was it copied verbatim from mailing list discussions, or was it paraphrased?

lucb1e2• 12 years ago

That is huge though. I felt I was spending way too much time watching this and hoped it was getting to a close, while I around message 250 out of 700. (Of part 1 it seems?!)

jordigh3• 12 years ago

Yeah, endless debate. Welcome to Debian decision-making. :-)

JoshTriplett2• 12 years ago

That is glorious. And several of the characters match very well, particularly Russ as Phoenix and Bdale as the Judge.

enko2• 12 years ago

That was absolutely great, and it is fascinating how the animated storytelling makes a complicated, lengthy debate so much more accessible.

I wonder if other complicated debates, especially political, could be presented in such a format, and if this would have a positive effect for informed democracy?

TazeTSchnitzel2• 12 years ago

Heh. This is the power of the Visual Novel medium! :)

teddyh2• 12 years ago

That thing is unbelievably more awesome than I would otherwise have assumed.

Who made this (and part 2)? How can I find out if any more parts are made?

teddyh2• 12 years ago

Apparently it was made by Dainius Masiliūnas (http://greatemerald.xmpcommunity.com/), who seems to be active in the Phoronix forums: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/member.php?17103-GreatEmerald

forgottenpass2• 12 years ago

What happened to the last vote? I saw some criticism that Ian jumped the gun by calling for votes when he did and putting two issues on at once but haven't read the archive in the meantime.

Pretty unfortunate it took this long. Even as a casual observer it's looked like they'd eventually pick systemd a month ago. Hopefully this vote is the last one.

JoshTriplett2• 12 years ago

What happened to the last vote?

Steve Langasek objected to the wording of the "tight coupling" and "loose coupling" options, and several others on the committee decided to vote Further Discussion first in response to that. It turns out that Steve (upstart maintainer) and Russ (primary systemd advocate on the committee) both agree fairly closely on that issue, in that the committee really shouldn't be ruling on that question in that way.

rodgerd6• 12 years ago

It seems like that's the fundamental split between Ian and Everyone Else. Russ, Bdale, Steve, and Colin all want to make sure that people don't start creating unreasonable dependency chains ("I want the functionality provided by logind for my DE, therefore I will require systemd as the init system") when alternatives are available ("I need the functionality provided by logind so I require that and let systemd or the Canonical fork of logind provide it").

Ian is speccing it out so that nothing may ever rely on capabilities provided by a init implementation unless the Debian developers add that functionality to every possible init system in the archive. That is a very odd position, to put it mildly (you couldn't e.g. ship a GUI tool to manage upstart. You'd have to rewrite it to support systemd, as well).

pekk• 12 years ago

So when are they going to vote on whether to switch to RPM?

raikage• 12 years ago

When RedHat decides to switch to DEB

SEJeff2• 12 years ago

And why would Reshat want to move to a clearly inferior solution? Next you'll say they want to replace the super simple kickstart with preseed. Blasphemy I say!

jiggy2011• 12 years ago

Not a surprise, was there a compelling reason for upstart at all?

ash2• 12 years ago

Upstart was created before systemd.

Edit: Upstart was a great sysvinit replacement, at least during those years before systemd appeared.

dschulz• 12 years ago

That's not compelling.

rodgerd6• 12 years ago

upstart was always a mediocre to terrible sysv replacement. The fact it couldn't handle such insignificant programs like postfix natively speaks volumes.

kazagistar• 12 years ago

sysv init was created before upstart, so it clearly must be even better? Your argument makes no sense...

druiid2• 12 years ago

Not that I can think of. Upstart is slightly simpler than systemd to build configuration files for, but that's also because it doesn't have any advanced features like memory/processor/IO limits or the like. Additionally it doesn't even properly manage child processes... so you have to use wrappers to get Unicorn management working right in Upstart.

pjscott• 12 years ago

Upstart can set resource limits on anything setrlimit(2) offers, including memory and processor. It's not as flexible or reliable as systemd's use of control groups, though.

acdha3• 12 years ago

Upstart took years to add support for setuid/setgrp and still doesn't have basic features like a respawn delay which shipped in launchd (or 90s inetd) before upstart was released. There's still no integrated way to reliably kill malfunctioning child processes and the commands will block until success so you're going to need to kill -9 a lot when e.g. adjusting a script for a daemon which forks.

I was rooting for upstart for years but it's hard to take seriously as a project when basic sysadmin tasks are still gratuitously hard / unreliable.

lmm2• 12 years ago

Systemd isn't portable to non-linux. (And while you may not care about debian kfreebsd, some people do)

rodgerd6• 12 years ago

There are no working ports of upstart to non-linux, and up until 2 months ago no-one was even trying to. It's about as portable as systemd (i.e. with a bunch of work and if you don't mind forking it).

CameronNemo8• 12 years ago

systemd breaks LXC and lmctfy. systemd is not event based (matter of taste, I guess, but I prefer Upstart's model).

herokusaki2• 12 years ago

Looking at to the Arch wiki (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Lxc-systemd) it seems like LXC can be at least partially reconciled with systemd. Are there any features of LXC that absolutely can't be made to work with systemd?

SEJeff2• 12 years ago

What are you talking about? CoreOS uses docker + systemd extensively and docker is just a pretty wrapper ontop of lxc.

https://coreos.com/docs/launching-containers/launching/getti...

hayksaakian• 12 years ago

Could somebody explain like I'm five?

aoxfordca• 12 years ago

I second... Wannabe hacker and don't understand

bitskits• 12 years ago

This might be a helpful explainer:

http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2013/...

gpcz• 12 years ago

A Linux operating system has a core program called a kernel, which has the job of creating and maintaining an environment where other programs can run. Other programs include the login prompt, the shell that lets you execute programs, etc. However, there is a chicken-and-the-egg problem: once the environment is running, how do you run the first program? This is solved by having the Linux kernel run a program called "init" as the first program, which manages everything else (bringing up services, executing the login prompt, etc). There are multiple versions of this "init" program with different features and idiosyncrasies -- the Debian committee voted to use one called systemd rather than some competitors. Switching versions of init requires system administrators to relearn how to do many things, so the committee spent a lot of time weighing a lot of factors before making this decision.

pingswept• 12 years ago

A group of programmers who make a popular version of Linux have decided to make their version of Linux start with a new program when the computer boots. Instead of using a program from the 80's called "System V init scripts", they have decided to switch to a new program called "systemd." Both programs have the major responsibility of starting the rest of the programs that make up Linux.

I found this explanation of systemd interesting (though more suitable for a wannabe hacker than a 5-year-old (though I suppose the two sets may not be disjoint)): http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html

brownbat• 12 years ago

I would start with K900's rundown here: http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/132gle/eli5_the_syste...

More on the Debian debate: https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/upstart

And the Phoronix has a good overview of how this is playing out: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU1NjA

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQ5NzQ

InclinedPlane• 12 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-97qqUHwzGM

jtchang• 12 years ago

Can anyone give a quick rundown of the different init systems?

For the most part it can get confusing for a non day to day system administrator when I am trying to get a program to "run on boot". Between rc.local, init.d, run levels, etc. sometimes it is just frustrating.

XorNot• 12 years ago

Upstart is Ubuntu's event driven alternative to init.d. It's big benefit is that it stands alone, and can mimic init.d for compatibility just fine.

Personally (perhaps being the system I used) I think it's great - very easy to work with, and I've had no stability problems with it whatsoever.

philips• 12 years ago

systemd is also sysv and LSB init script compatible.

CameronNemo8• 12 years ago

I am just going to go over Upstart and systemd

systemd: dependency based init system. A service is written by declaring which services need to be started for that service to start. It is also a syslog like program (journal) and a cgroups writer (cgroups are a cointainment feature of the linux kernel). It also features socket activated and bus activated services, where the init system watches for a socket or dbus bus to be accessed, and then starts the job then. It is criticized for being too invasive and too tied to linux kernel features (like cgroups).

Upstart: an event based init system. Jobs start and stop on a certain event (or events). These events can be socket events, dbus events, udev events (network-device-added, removed, changed, etc.) or job events ($JOB-started, stopped, starting, stopping). There are also other events, but those are the basics. It suffers in two areas: socket activation is limited to one tcp or unix socket (no UDP, no tcp6, no DGRAM), and it unreliably stops services. The former is a simple problem that would not be too much work to fix (the developers of Upstart did not want to use socket activation, so they decided to stop efforts on developing it), and the latter is a fundamental code problem. Upstart uses ptrace to track daemons, while systemd uses pidfiles and cgroups. Because Upstart does not use cgroups, it can not kill all of a services children (just that service), and so zombie services might be problematic.

gingerlime2• 12 years ago

Because Upstart does not use cgroups, it can not kill all of a services children (just that service), and so zombie services might be problematic.

from my (very limited) experience with upstart, even the upstart scripts themselves can get into a unrecoverable zombie state[1], where the only workaround is to do one of the following 1) reboot ; 2) run some crazy-ass script[2] that forks processes until the right pid is grabbed to then kill it ; 3) rename the upstart script

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/upstart/+bug/10433... [2] https://gist.github.com/mitsuhiko/d55199e9b1ad7fc65504

b6fan• 12 years ago

I have used ptrace and cgroup (in an online judge system). The cgroup way feels more correct and stable while ptrace feels a hack. The usage of ptrace and SIGSTOP in upstart looks pretty ugly to me.

mjn2• 12 years ago

I know less about the new Linux ones, but a brief summary of the two big "traditional" ones:

Linux systems traditionally use "SysV Init", the init system from AT&T UNIX System V (1983). It's the one that has: 1) run levels; and 2) a pile of shell scripts in /etc/init.d that run on run-level changes. Run levels probably make most sense if you think of Ye Olde Mainframe booting: first it initializes core services, then it enters multi-user mode, then it initializes network services, then (optionally) it enters full application mode. These are supposed to be discrete, semantically meaningful boot levels that you could purposely initiate: boot to runlevel 1, boot to runlevel 2, drop back to runlevel 1. Dependencies are handled by a mixture of those runlevels, and scripts that are run in alphabetical order within run levels. That ordering (unlike runlevels) is not supposed to be meaningful to the sysop, but just necessity-based: some stuff depends on other services already being started, even if conceptually you want them all "at once". The convention is to prefix startup-script filenames with numbers that effectively serve as priorities within a runlevel.

BSD systems traditionally use their own "BSD init". There are no runlevels, though there is still a separate "single-user mode" for maintenance. In classic BSD startup was just one very large shell script in /etc/rc. In later versions it was augmented by an /etc/rc.local script that allowed local modifications to be made without mucking with the main script. Modern BSDs (starting with NetBSD, later adopted by the others) modularized it, with an /etc/rc.d directory (base system) and /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ directory (ports). This differs from SysV init in that it still has no run levels, and rather than explicit ordering via filename sorting, has dependency-resolution ordering via semantic comments at the top of each script that are parsed and resolved by rcorder(8) (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=rcorder&sektion=8). Afaik this system, originating in NetBSD, was the first dependency-based startup system on a free Unix (I believe commercial Unixes like Solaris also moved to dependency-based init in the 2000s).

Many Linux vendors have decided that SysV Init is not such a nice system nowadays, because it involves maintaining fairly complex scripts with edge cases that have to be handled in every script through error-prone boilerplate, and an explicit global startup ordering: all programs that can be installed on Debian and need startup must be assigned an integer that fully specifies their position in the startup sequence relative to all other programs that might also be installed. Runlevels as a mechanism also seem pretty unhelpful for most uses people have nowadays. Instead there is a hope for some kind of dependency-based startup. But the big disagreement is over what to replace it with. It is also complicated by other changes that are happening in parallel and which are caught up in it. For example, Linux's 'cgroups' resource-control mechanism has long been in the kernel, but not widely used by userspace tools, and there are moves to sort out this situation by essentially letting the init system also own resource assignments, which would more tightly couple those components. This is probably where the big philosophical differences come in.

SrslyJosh• 12 years ago

(I believe commercial Unixes like Solaris also moved to dependency-based init in the 2000s).

You are correct. Solaris 10 introduced SMF (http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/821-1451/dzhid.html...), which kicks quite a bit of ass.

Services are defined in XML files called manifests, which specify dependencies (including filesystems and network connectivity), the user and group to run as, timeouts for start/stop, and a bunch of other stuff.

The cool part is that, while the manifest files are static, SMF doesn't actually use them directly. The service definitions get slurped into a DB, and you can change properties (such as the whether or not the service is enabled, the user to run as, and pretty much anything else the manifest author thought of) on the fly, without editing a manifest or mucking with symlinks.

SMF also starts services in parallel (Solaris/OpenSolaris boot really, really quickly), and services that die are automatically restarted (so long as they're dying again too quickly).

weland• 12 years ago

Whoa! You aren't bashing any of them and the explanation is 100% correct! WHAT HAS THE INTERNETS COME TO?

Congratulations on a very well-written summary!

jeltz• 12 years ago

Debian already has dependency based boot based on magic comments at the top for their syvinit scripts. The program used is called insserv and is something they got from Suse.

wyc• 12 years ago

Just my two cents as I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread:

launchd is the init system used by Mac OSX and has been ported to FreeBSD a few years ago with a recent resurgent effort for improvements [1]. It has been suggested that launchd could one day be the new FreeBSD init system due to speed and feature improvements, but many FreeBSD users think that the init system is a non-issue and efforts could be better spent elsewhere. launchd has also been criticized as to have been developed for OSX and not BSD (e.g. it depends on CoreFoundation features).

There is growing concern that applications will become more reliant on systemd and therefore Linux-only features [2], reducing or eliminating portability to the BSDs. Unfortunately, most conversations about init systems and FreeBSD degenerate into flame wars [3].

[1] https://github.com/rtyler/openlaunchd

[2] http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg//2013/07/13/systemd-not...

[3] http://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?t=35770

jordigh3• 12 years ago

systemd is basically launchd for Linux (and only Linux). The systemd devs make no apology about the launchd inspiration.

sciurus• 12 years ago

See the pages for each init system linked to from https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem

chjj• 12 years ago

I can give a simplified overview of the major difference as I understand it (the difference being the method by which each init system starts its daemons on boot):

sysvinit/bsdinit - Starts daemons in serial (i.e. synchronously). Considered slow and outdated by today's standards.

upstart/launchd - Starts daemons in parallel, based on which daemons depend on each other (If B depends on A, A is started first. If C doesn't depend on anything. C is started at the same time as A. If D depends on C, D is started at the same time as B, and so on).

systemd - Creates all the necessary sockets for each daemon beforehand, and starts nearly all processes in parallel.

Aside from that, they're all configured differently, but if the competition is primarily over speed, systemd wins every time due to its clever design. the newer inits also include a lot of handy tools that aren't part of a traditional init, but that's a different story.

asdfaoeu2• 12 years ago

Ah um some of this is wrong.

upstart doesn't have dependencies thats systemd. Upstart you have to specify when a service should start based on events or combinations of events like "start on started avahi and started nfs". Theoretically this make upstart more flexible though complex event handling is mostly broken. This system also means upstart ends up trying to start everything it can it might start a service which is not needed but because it's start on event has activated it starts. systemd differs in that only required services for that .target are started (and services required by those.

systemd has Require/Wants to specify dependencies as well as the socket activation features. Socket activation requires a compliant daemon as well so a lot of services still use explicit dependencies. Socket activation does give you a lot of other stuff for free, listening on privileged ports as user, restarts without dropping connections, delayed start (not starting until requests come) etc.

goldenkey• 12 years ago

cron's @reboot is very handy

herokusaki2• 12 years ago

Did Debian at any point consider launchd?

mateuszf• 12 years ago

Doesn't work on Linux.

schwarze_pest2• 12 years ago

Launchd works on Linux (and xBSD) -- in the sense, that it can be ported without much effort. Systemd in contrast only works on Linux because it relies heavily on kernel features like cgroups.

schwarze_pest2• 12 years ago

Ubuntu considered using launchd.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReplacementInit?action=show&redirect...

auvrw• 12 years ago

ran across this link, which might be helpful for people familiar sysvinit but not systemd

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-3.html

tl;dc: systemd replaces the bash scripts you're used to grepping through with unix .conf files that fit on the screen.

dfc4• 12 years ago

Can an HN mod change the title? The committee has not voted in favor of systemd (yet).

kudu• 12 years ago

I'm very doubtful as to whether it was within the Technical Committee's role to rule on this. After all, there is nearly a consensus on the fact that systemd is the superior init system. The question of whether certain kernels should have more features by default at the expense of portability is a matter of policy, and not a technical decision.

qwoeiu2• 12 years ago

fucking bureaucrats

kashchei5• 12 years ago

I have to remind everyone that the author of systemd is Lennart Poettering, the guy behind Pulseaudio. I think, this is one "feature" that should outweigh all supposed benefits of this program.

For those unfamiliar with Pulseaudio development, it's a third-generation audio subsystem (after OSS and ALSA with JACK forming two previous ones, and ESD being the beginning of the third) that is famous for overcomplicated, non-human-writable barely human-readable configuration procedure, development marred with huge number of bugs that ruined audio on Linux until recently, and suffering from immense number of internal interfaces and system being presented as a huge monolithic piece of software that can not be used in a modular manner except as modules that only talk among themselves.

systemd seems to suffer from the same problems, plus it tries to "integrate" init, udev and syslog into a single "product", with arcane internal interfaces and formats -- just as non-human-writable as Pulseaudio.

oblio2• 12 years ago

I find hard to read such comments and think that they are valuable contributions anymore.

First of all, Pulseaudio was not the biggest success, true, but can't someone learn from their mistakes? Both are also living, moving software products that continue to improve, as you said, "development marred with huge number of bugs that ruined audio on Linux until recently" - key words: "until recently".

Secondly, about the technical aspects:

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ -> "The systemd for Administrators Blog Series"

Lennard Poettering said it better than I ever will.

kashchei5• 12 years ago

The design is still beyond horrible, and on par with Windows. If everything that can be shoehorned into a system and "works" despite being a complicated mess, was accepted, we would have adopted Windows registry and SNMP as primary configuration mechanisms, too -- after all, they both work more reliably than Pulseaudio does.

kashchei5• 12 years ago

Also: just saying that something is a myth does not make it any less true. The whole point is that systemd (and Pulseaudio) is anti-Unix because its author does not understand Unix design, how would his opinion be of any value in this matter?

FooBarWidget4• 12 years ago

So distributions chose to bundle Pulseaudio before it was sufficiently stable, and this is all Lennart's fault and he must forever burn in hell with no way to ever, ever fix or improve things?

The Lennart hate is ridiculous. This time, even Linux kernel hackers think systemd is a good idea. What are your credentials?

crististm2• 12 years ago

Well, when Lennart says that *BSD is irrelevant as if he was the judge of that... I don't see why he shouldn't be able take a little heat. After all - he is the god that wrote, you know, PulseAudio and Systemd.

There are other hackers around that are not "Linux hackers" who might have a different view about the quality of Linux space. I tend to agree with them.

agumonkey3• 12 years ago

PA was force-pushed too early, systemd got it's own momentum. AFAIK PA suffered from external unsolvable forces, like hardware/driver giving inconsistent if not false data to PA, causing failures; I believe systemd is shielded from this. The benefits (sound dependency based state) already outbid the other issue one might have with it (less freeform scriptability as in SV).

kashchei5• 12 years ago

I see a pattern here. What guarantees that in ten years the same claims won't be made about systemd being pushed in 2014 "while not ready", but by 2023 all issues are ironed out after the whole thing was rewritten three times and was responsible for more security breaches than bind and sendmail combined over their history?

In my opinion, there is no replacement for true modularity, simple, future-proof interfaces, and clear, human-readable and human-writable formats.

__david__• 12 years ago

And yet, it seems to be very popular and is the default audio system in many many Linux distros. It seems odd to me that such a poorly written and obtuse program would be readily embraced by the desktops and distros (and every other program that it needs to interface with).

If the downsides are so severe, it must have some really good upsides, otherwise no one would use it.

My personal anecdote is that Debian installed it for me on my long running system and that I've never touched a config file or otherwise looked at it at all and that my audio always works...

undoware• 12 years ago

I usually just put everything in inittab. ;D

e12e• 12 years ago

Did anyone see if runit was ever considered? Perhaps it was considered a better alternative to just stick with sysv vs changing to runit?

dschiptsov• 12 years ago

Now they should start to pray so it will never segfault.)

qwoeiu2• 12 years ago

OpenRC is the only sysvinit alternative that even tries to comply with unix way and yet (judging from Ace Attorney retelling at least) sadly it is totally ignored by Debian devs.

agumonkey3• 12 years ago

it was mentioned a few times, missing documentation was probably a deal breaker

miga• 12 years ago

Since it is vote in a technical discussion, I wouldn't be so sure, until everybody voices their opinion. After all, insight into merits and flaws of each system may change.

And that's what technical (sub)committees are for.

PS I would vote for "further discussion" in a very Debian style.

Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

Related Stories