SysV init was the overengineered cousin to BSD init and I never liked it. Easily my least favorite of all init systems I've worked with over the last 30 years. On the flip side, daemontools or maybe runit were my favorites. Lots of good options for init/supervision tooling over the years and SysV was not among them.

▲

cf100clunk 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If we look on LFS for its academic merit, I'm saddened that key historical elements of Unix/Linux design are being left behind, much like closing down a wing of a laboratory or museum and telling students that they'll need to whip up their own material to fill in those gaps.

▲

onraglanroad 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, it's like asking students to actually produce something themselves.

What a horrific thought.

	▲	cf100clunk 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If the students have been well trained, they should be trusted to experiment. If the course curriculum demands that they produce something themselves yet does not educate them on doing so, that's horrific.

▲

ktm5j 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From the announcement, it saddens them too:

> As a personal note, I do not like this decision. To me LFS is about learning how a system works. Understanding the boot process is a big part of that. systemd is about 1678 "C" files plus many data files. System V is "22" C files plus about 50 short bash scripts and data files.

However the reasoning they provide makes sense.. It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd.

▲

nine_k 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Certain things should only be taught as a warning. SysV init is one of them.

▲

cf100clunk 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Back in the day, system run levels were seen as desirable. SysVinit went in on that concept to the max. So, if the concept of run levels isn't clear to the student beforehand, the init system for making it happen would therefore be mystifying and maybe even inscrutible.

	▲	nine_k 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Runlevels may be an interesting idea (e.g. the single-user maintenance level). But a bunch of shell scripts, each complex enough to support different commands, sort-of-declare dependencies, etc, is not such a great idea. A Makefile describing runlevels and service dependencies would be a cleaner design (not necessarily a nicer implementation).

▲

acdha 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

SysV was this weird blind spot for many years. I remember installing daemontools on the OpenBSD server my office ran on because it was nicer to work with, and thinking that the Linux world would switch to avoid losing that particular feature war with Windows.