I have been saying for years that Microsoft would eventually deprecate WinNT and switch Windows over to a Linux foundation. Things seem to be slowly but continually moving in that direction.

How did you get GTK3/4 to work without dbus?

So, devuan?

Learn about what stuff? Linux? System V UNIX?

I haven't done LFS since my tweens (and I'm almost 30 now), but I remember the sysvinit portion amounted to, past building and installing the init binary, downloading and extracting a bunch of shell scripts into the target directory and following some instructions for creating the right symlinks.

Obviously, you can go and check out the init scripts (or any other individual part of LFS) as closely as you wish, and it is easier to "see" than systemd. But I strongly protest that sysvinit is either "Linux" (in that it constitutes a critical part of "understanding Linux" nor that it's really that understandable.

But setting aside all of that, and even setting aside the practical reasons given (maintenance burden), when the majority of "Linux" in the wild is based on systemd, if one wanted to do "Linux From Scratch" and get an idea of how an OS like Debian or Fedora works, you would want to build and install systemd from source.

Well to be fair, you don't need to understand how SystemD is built to know how to use it. Unit files are pretty easy to wrap your head around, it took me a while to adjust but I dig it now.

To make an analogy: another part of LFS is building a compiler toolchain. You don't need to understand GCC internals to know how to do that.

he is counting every c file in the systemd _repository_ which houses multiple projects, libraries and daemons. he equates that to the c file count for a single init. it's a disingenuous comparison. systemd-init is a small slice of the code in the systemd repository.

I can absolutely say that I've never had a showstopping problem with sysv. That is about 30 years as a unix & linux admin and developer.

The whole point of sysv is the components are too small and too simple to make it possible for "showstoppers". Each component, including init, does so little that there is no room for it to do something wrong that you as the end user at run-time don't have the final power to both diagnose and address. And to do so in a approximately infinite different ways that the original authors never had to try to think up and account for ahead of time.

You have god power to see into the workings, and modify them, 50 years later in some crazy new context that the original authors never imagined. Which is exactly why they did it that way, not by accident nor because it was cave man times and they would invent fancier wheels later.

You're tired of hearing complaints? People still complain because the problem did not go away. I'm tired of still having to live with the fact that all the major distros bought in to this crap and by now a lot of individual packages don't even pretend to support any other option, and my choices are now to eat this crap or go off and live in some totally unsupported hut in the wilderness.

You can just go on suffering the intolerable boring complaints as far as I'm concerned until you grow some consideration for anyone else to earn some for yourself.

Equally tiring is the “it works for me so stop complaining” replies, which do nothing to stop the complaints but do increase the probability of arguments. Want the complaint posts to stop? Suggesting that they’re in some way invalid is not the way.

Imagine that, people on the internet disagreeing. I've had both sysv and sysd crap in my cheerios. 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. Sysvinit never proposed something like homed.

I understand where you’re coming from but early systemd with both ubuntu and centos was a fucking mess. It’s good now but goddamn it was painful and the hate is 100% justified.

My experience, and the common experience I’ve read, is the exact opposite. Run scripts worked. They always worked. They were simple. I’ve run into so many difficulties with systemd, on the other hand. I gave up managing my own server as a result.

OP here. I was hoping we could avoid the interminable, infernal discussion of systemd vis-a-vis emotional states.

> Not once in my career have I experienced a showstopping issue with systemd. I cannot say the same for sysV.

I have had both ruin days for me. In particular the "hold down" when it detects service flapping has caused issues in both.

I use runit now. It's been rock solid on dozens of systems for more than a decade.

From an education standpoint for those who really, really want to understand, the *BSD init and SysVinit systems require direct human administration. You break it, you fix it. Then, and only then, does learning systemd's ''then something happens behind the curtain'' type of automation make sense. If the student decides that one is more suitable than the other(s), they've done so from an enlightened vantage point.