antiX 23 sysVinit ?

[Member Wallon]

Dear developers,

Will there still be an antiX-23 sysVinit version?

Best regards,
Wallon

[Member PPC]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I’m not a Developer, but I think it’s safe to assume yes- it will have 32bits and 64bits versions, sysV and Runit versions, core, net, etc…
anticapitalista just choose one iso to work with, during the testing stages of antiX 23… It makes no sense creating 16 test isos, right?

[Member Robin]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Hello Wallon!
Did you see any shortcoming with runit? I’m running 23 alpha for long time testing now (identically equipped to the 22 frugal install), and could not notice any issues with runit, I can’t even see any difference in working on it. So anticapitalista could save some work when not providing additional sysvinit ISOs. Do you see a specific need for them?

Many greetings
Robin

Windows is like a submarine. Open a window and serious problems will start.

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Robin wrote:

Hello Wallon!
Did you see any shortcoming with runit? I’m running 23 alpha for long time testing now (identically equipped to the 22 frugal install), and could not notice any issues with runit, I can’t even see any difference in working on it. So anticapitalista could save some work when not providing additional sysvinit ISOs. Do you see a specific need for them?

Many greetings
Robin

You know, our runit implementation has improved a LOT since the initial one and we now have some really solid configuration tools to go with it.
I’ve been using ONLY runit on my every day version AND the antiX 23 Alpha 1 test version. Yesterday I was running antiX 23 for at least six hours with not a single issue, and I’m running antiX 22 right now with runit.

IF we decide to cut down on the number of init mechanisms used, I’d have zero issues using runit. It’s superior to both systemD and sysVInit in my opinion. SystemD works, but it’s a binary cludge from a Red Hat employee that’s done nothing but stir controversy ever since it was introduced. Both SystemD and runit solve the SAME problem, but runit is freely available and our implementation is one of the best ones. SysVInit is stable, but it’s old and does not make effective use of multiple processors compared to either SystemD or runit, so I’m a proponent of runit.

It’s not my decision to make, but my opinion is clear, go runit!

--
Brian Masinick

[Member PPC]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Brian Masinick wrote:

It’s not my decision to make, but my opinion is clear, go runit!

I agree completely. If anticapitalista feels the runit version is mature enough, I do think that cutting the isos by half (no sysV) would take a load off his shoulders and make antiX easier to maintain. I read a post, in a forum, where someone complained that he was not able do to something in runit, that worked in sysV, but I don’t recall any details about it…
My work desktop PC has antiX 22 64bits, full, runit, kernel 6.1, and has not yet given a single problem (except the problem that also affected the sysV versions I tried – autologin does not work and freezes my computer).

P.

[Member olsztyn]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Brian Masinick wrote:

It’s not my decision to make, but my opinion is clear, go runit!

I completely concur with Brian and PPC. Focus attention and future development on runit as it is a superior init. I have been running runit since it was introduced to antiX and never looked back…

Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

olsztyn wrote:

Brian Masinick wrote:

It’s not my decision to make, but my opinion is clear, go runit!

I completely concur with Brian and PPC. Focus attention and future development on runit as it is a superior init. I have been running runit since it was introduced to antiX and never looked back…

Looks like Robin, olsztyn, PPC, and Brian like runit. Wallon was asking, wonder what Wallon prefers? Others?

--
Brian Masinick

[Member PPC]

Helpful

Up

0

::

anticapitalista wrote:

In the immediate future ie antiX-23, we will ship both sysVinit and runit isos.

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

1

::

anticapitalista also mentioned: “The future?
For antiX it is certainly not with systemd init.
It *might* be with other ‘modern’ alternatives such as S6 and dinit.
In the immediate future ie antiX-23, we will ship both sysVinit and runit isos.”

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Brian Masinick.

--
Brian Masinick

[Member marcelocripe]

Helpful

Up

0

::

If it’s working fine and it’s not SystemD, I don’t care what the boot system name is.
We even have the Runit management program translated into antiX, which is equivalent to “Choose Startup Services”. Now I just need to learn how to use the program.

– – – – –

Se o funcionamento estiver estável e não sendo o SystemD, não me importa qual é o nome do sistema de inicialização.
Inclusive, nós já temos o programa de gestão do Runit traduzido no antiX, que é equivalente ao “Choose Startup Services”. Agora só falta eu aprender a utilizar o programa.

[Member blur13]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Then again, its hard to discern any real life benefit of runit over sysvinit.

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

blur13 wrote:

Then again, its hard to discern any real life benefit of runit over sysvinit.

It really depends greatly upon what we do and how we use our systems. My HP-14 is a multiprocessor unit;
so is my Dell Inspiron 5558. In everyday use, I don’t often stress them out too much, but suppose I have
a spreadsheet doing a lot of numerical calculations in which I put the solutions in another column, while
I’m running a Web browser in parallel with several open tabs, perhaps typing as I go.

On top of that if I decide to actually compile a new version of Chromium and I put that in it’s own
thread, I am pretty sure that kind of a workload would be able to benefit from multiprocessing and the
runit scheduler MIGHT be able to demonstrate some tangible process switching benefits, though I’ve not
performed any specific analysis; I’m just suggesting a theoretical workload that could benefit from
efficient process scheduling.

--
Brian Masinick

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Whether I get any benefits or not, I will say that I’ve used antiX runit on three or four different computers ranging
in age and capabilities; antiX runit works great on all of them so with that statement my other comment regarding
workload MIGHT show off runit, but I’d also say that running this software on many types of computers also shows
that it works well, so “who cares”? Doesn’t matter if we like this system.

Anticapitalista can put sysvinit, runit, s6, or dinit and after getting an infrastructure in place, and time to test,
they would all work; we have TWO of them actively working NOW – sysvinit and runit; congratulations to our
outstanding development team for giving us alternatives, all of which are efficient and effective.

--
Brian Masinick

[Member Wallon]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Dear All,

Thanks for the explanation. anticapitalista replied in another thread that there would be an antiX 23 sysvinit version.

Best regards,
Wallon

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Yes, sysVinit and runit are planned for antiX 23.

--
Brian Masinick

[Author]

Posts