sysvinit

Sure, this probably could have been grafted on to sysvinit, but it would have been an ugly hack just like every other thing that's been grafted on to sysvinit.

The need to replace sysvinit was/is valid but systemd is truly a horrible piece of software.

Then why does it seem like every Debian debate compared it (favorably) to upstart or sysvinit?

If you don't know, add After=C to D and you've got a slightly slower but sequential boot as with sysvinit.

Oh, sure, sequentially starting up a fixed list of services is probably easier with sysvinit, given that's the only thing it does.

On the other hand `systemd-nspawn` creates isolated containers, I'd be surprised you can't run sysvinit inside it.

We created powerful, but simple systems like sysvinit, and we designed to optimize speed in 80% of use cases.

I don't know how to write sysvinit scripts any more than I know how to write fizzbuzz.

I never mentioned anything about sysvinit, which has nothing to do with the bad design in systemd.

I'm quite sure that it's far easier to express complex dependencies with systemd than with sysvinit, if that's your concern.

I guess you don't have many options: you can stick with sysvinit for a while (eg.

Are you seriously saying that most distribution maintainers were happy with sysvinit?

The only useful information there is "sysvinit uses the proc filesystem (in src/{bootlog,hddown,killall5}.c)", the reset is just water about semi-related procfs stuff.

Append "init=/bin/bash" to the kernel command line to circumvent sysvinit.

Really, as long as the "script" is executable, a SysVInit-based or BSD-rc-based system doesn't really care (unless it's doing something strange like calling a specific interpreter on each script - i.e.

Obviously, I was replying to this claim: "Systemd is not a monolith, it is a bunch of various utilities." > Which is the exact opposite of what has happened during the sysvinit times.