zlacker

>>cf100c+(OP)
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.

>>eikenb+ka
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.

>>cf100c+Gb
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.

>>ktm5j+Xo
> It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd.

Most Gentoo Linux desktop users disagree. In fact, OpenRC is the default in that distro.

Having said that, I do expect that Gentoo has more manpower available than LFS.