Hacker News Reader

> I think we just have different ideas of what the word "reasonable" means.

I think we just have different ideas of what the term "building blocks" means.

You cannot add (or remove) part of systemD as you wish: on a Linux system I cannot replace journald with something, and I cannot bring journald over to FreeBSD. SystemD is tightly-coupled (heck, they even borg'd in udevd, which was an independent project at one point).

Building blocks in my mind are like Legos: you can put together the thing you see on the box, but the individual (literal) blocks can be used however you wish.

This is the best point I’ve heard for this perspective.

I guess I just never cared to actually LEGO much with Linux.

an init system that is just an init system. _That's it_. Any other option is unreasonable.

Upstart was reasonable. So is OpenRC.

I don't think anyone seriously defends sysvinit.

However upstart was totally reasonable.

Nobody even uses sysvinit. When people say they use sysvinit, they actually mean a pile of ad-hoc shell scripts that have no relationship to sysvinit.

Fair point.