zlacker

>>cf100c+(OP)
This is a mindblower. To quote Bruce Dubbs:

''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. Yes, systemd provides a lot of capabilities, but we will be losing some things I consider important.

However, the decision needs to be made.''

>>cf100c+n
Runit is 5474 SLOCs. Most source files are shorter than 100 lines. Works like a charm. Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anything else.

Systemd, by construction, is a set of Unix-replacing daemons. An ideal embedded system setup is kernel, systemd, and the containers it runs (even without podman). This makes sense, especially given the Red Hat's line of business, but it has little relation to the Unix design, or to learning how to do things from scratch.

>>nine_k+gr
> but it has little relation to the Unix design

It's more like Windows! /duck

>>p_ing+gA
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.

>>its_ma+tE
Makes no sense to dump a superior kernel and executive for Linux.

The Win32 layer is the issue, not the underbelly.

>>p_ing+7I
I’ve had more hard crashes and BSODs on Windows than any other OS. And I use Linux & Mac more than Windows. Not sure how it’s superior.

>>anon70+dX1
More advanced APIs which allow more fine-grained interaction between system and application IF you can figure out how to use them

>>rusk+Sh2
My favorite example of this is how Windows NT has had async IO forever, while also being notorious for having slower storage performance than Linux. And when Linux finally got an async API worth using, Microsoft immediately set about cloning it for Windows.

Theoretical or aesthetic advantages are no guarantee that the software in question will actually be superior in practice.

>>wtalli+mj2
ASync I/O isn't limited to just storage, though. It's /all/ I/O.

And yes, the layered storage stack does have a performance penalty to it. But it's also infinitely more flexible, if that is what you need. Linux still lacks IOCP (which io_uring is not a replacement for).

Windows' VMM and OOM is also generally much better.