SysVinit

“You can't really separate the buggy SysVinit shell scripts from SysVinit itself.”

“it does nothing that is hardware specific”

“In contrast SysVInit worked ok on servers and sort of on desktops, but on laptops forget it.”

“SysVinit was... fine.. on servers.”

“I don't think anyone seriously defends sysvinit.”

“I find it a lot easier than learning systemd, or learning anything else.”

“If people are accustomed to UNIX systems, the sysvinit is better.”

“Before you say "so does sysvinit", no it does not. It was janky-but-workable on servers and desktops in the 90s”

“the scripts available in various distributions were very heterogeneous and many were quite bad”

“They were absolutely brittle. sysvinit losing processes (it thinking a service is either dead or not incorrectly) is common”

“We were able to order services, define dependencies and deterministically boot systems at the speed of light.”

“a lot of people dismissed the sysvinit early on because it had no features”

“Not having to read a whole shell script to know how a service works is such an improvement”

“sysvinit is an old 90s application and its code does have some cruft built up over the years”

“SysVinit is better than systemd, but far from perfect.”

“the sysvinit did not respect user decisions during upgrades or reinstalls!”

“sysvinit offers the worst of all possible worlds”

“there is something lost when as a Linux community, we try to shove the baggage under the rug”

“the way it abuses runlevels to start daemons was never intended by the original designers of init”

“SysVInit is abusing runlevel scripts for starting daemons which has always been a hack to be able to resolve dependencies between daemons.”

“With sysv, the difficulty depended on the local tools because the launching scripts could not be shared across Linux distributions.”

“the difficulty depended on the local tools because the launching scripts could not be shared across Linux distributions”

“understanding the Linux init process is far more important”

“Run scripts worked. They always worked. They were simple.”

“The whole point of sysv is the components are too small and too simple to make it possible for "showstoppers"”

“a bunch of shell scripts, each complex enough to support different commands, sort-of-declare dependencies, etc, is not such a great idea”

“the init system for making it happen would therefore be mystifying and maybe even inscrutible”

“Certain things should only be taught as a warning.”

“even in the 90s it was notably behind, say, Windows NT 3 in a lot of ways which matter”

“for personal preference, I am more traditional and favor SysVInit.”

“The thing I appreciated about sysv was that it stayed in its lane and didn't want to keep branching out into new parts of the system.”

“the *BSD init and SysVinit systems require direct human administration.”

“while it may have given people headaches and lacked some functionality, was IMHO simple to understand”

“SysV is not without its quirks and weirdness and foot guns”

“SysV init was the overengineered cousin to BSD init and I never liked it.”

“it is clear and human-friendly, with easy uptake by newcomers”

“It's entirely possible that both SysV init and systemd suck for different reasons.”

“clean up the messes caused by SysV’s design limitations and flaws”

“try using runit or sysvinit on a production system”

“SysV init can not handle daemons that double-fork”