Indeed. Stand by for the heat discharge from conservatives toward the Vichy GOP as they assume Congressional power.

I spawn services from init. It works very well, on, off, once, respawn. It's very fast when it restarts a service and if a service flaps then it won't expend all of CPU restarting, it will just wait before attempting to restart the service and scream loudly in the meantime. I don't wonder if it is working because init is so responsive.

Perhaps it's just easy for people to write bad init.d scripts and everything 'kinda' works?

I've tried to make init crash in tests - it's very difficult. As a daemon manager, init works well.

Sorry friend, I read your link but it's immediately apparent that this guy hasn't even read the inittab manual. The answer to many of the statements made in that blog are answered in the subject line of this post. Others are implementation issues with the application.

He may have a point with parallelism in the boot sequence, but I only care about boot speed if I am on a desktop - in which case I can just re-write how rc starts things. On a server rc's runlevel and service ordering K and S answer the question of service dependencies in a much easier and *transparent* way. And why are dependencies such a big deal - the application should be able to cope with a required service missing in an intelligent way. And if the dependency doesn't start it has a problem that systemd or init can't handle, so I'm back to wondering what systemd is actually doing for me.

Please don't see this as me defending init. I am trying to see what the justification is in choosing to run systemd with my servers - which I am trialling. I'm finding the unnecessary complexity of systemd can put me in a bad situation when I am trying to control the uptime of commercial services.

If you just want the system to boot faster - you can already achieve that with rc tweaks and implementing your service startup better instead of hacking it. The way I see it with systemd I now have three problems to deal with instead of one. 1. I still have crappy start-up implementations for services. 2. I have to now manage systemd's characteristics (obviously init isn't perfect) 3. When I have downtime I have to manage 1&2 at the worst time. Frankly operating init is so much faster and more transparent than systemd.

I see no tangible benefit for the expenditure of effort I've sincerely made, so far and I'm still wondering if there is a compelling reason. I'd rather have a discussion based on merit of the two systems, however what is compelling is that many people haven't used init to it's full capacity.

That's what my math prof at the university said after he asked people who thought this or that answer was right (and the majority was wrong): Science is not a democratic process.

Sadly, it has turned into one.

Peer review sadly doesn't mean what it used to mean: That a lot of others who are experts in your field took a look and nodded their heads. What it means to day: A lot of other people in your field of study think likewise.

Scientists are humans, as much as they try to sit on high horses and claim they ain't. They don't like being wrong. They don't like to give someone else the satisfaction of coming up with some paradigm shifting discovery. And most of all they certainly do not want to admit that they wasted their life hunting the rabbit down the wrong hole.

Imagine we'd only discover today that the sun, not earth, is the center of our solar system. You think any of the scientists who invested their whole life perfecting deferent and epicycle calculation would budge to the overwhelming proof that they're wrong?

They have over 38000 entries there? That makes it the biggest satirical Wikipedia clone I know.

Sounds like those issues are implementation based.

Ok - well your talking about desktop stuff here, which is an interesting perspective that I didn't really consider, however I still think that is doable in inittab with much less effort. rc is only a runlevel solution, whereas inittab would be more relevant to desktop. I don't need to keep track of the process and it's children because init can maintain the parents state for me - if the parent isn't signalling it's children then we are back to implementation issues again.

jeeez. I'm just trying to figure it out. I'm not being a jerk about it, I'm trying to gauge other peoples experiences. I don't give a fuck about init if systemd is better - it's just another technology. But if it is better than shouldn't it be immediately apparent *WHY* it is better?

I did. I've been using it - to give it a fair chance. I'm still struggling to understand if those benefits will manifest and why it's required.

It is certainly immoral to use war and its tools to gain wealth and power, but is it idiotic? I'd say they're sick. Most of our leaders are, certainly the heads of finance are.

I would love to! Hell, 20% more if need be! But please tell me, which airline is it that offers me said service?

I want my legroom, I want my complimentary soda, I want my headphones, I want enough room to put my notebook down sensibly. Tell me the airline that offers it and whatever price they ask is probably acceptable. The problem is that it ain't offered (or at least, it ain't advertised).

I can't believe I'd be the only person willing to pay up for being treated like a human being rather than cattle, but it seems the airlines don't agree with me in that point.

ba-dom-tish!