zlacker

>>todsac+(OP)
I would like a comparison with runit, which is a very minimal but almost full-fledged init system. I see many similarities: control directories, no declarative dependencies, a similar set of scripts, the same approach to logging. The page mentions runit in passing, and even suggests using the chpst utility from it.

One contrasting feature is parametrized services: several similar processes (like agetty) can be controlled by one service directory; I find it neat.

Another difference is the ability to initiate reboot or shutdown as an action of the same binary (nitroctl).

Also, it's a single binary; runit has several.

>>nine_k+0k
> no declarative dependencies,

Is that a selling point? Could you explain why?

I've heard plenty of reasons why people find systemd distasteful as an init, but I've not heard much criticism of a declarative design.

>>ethers+3b1
> Is that a selling point? Could you explain why?

Because it's stupid easy? I just have to execute shell one liners and set environment variables, no need to read lenghty docs and do stuff the systemd way.

We use runit to supervise our services. It's 100% reliable as opposed to systemd which sometimes fails in mysterious ways.