Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: probably will stick with runit (Read 1260 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

probably will stick with runit

I managed to duplicate my runit setup with dinit and it was not that hard, but I think I find the simplicity of runit too attractive to switch.

One thing that puts me off is the parallel starting which probably means parallel stopping. Getting a fixed order for start/stop is more important than startup time for me and I understand all of the steps in the runit process.

In addition runit seems well supported in docker land.

Re: probably will stick with runit

Reply #1 –
Use whatever you know best and are comfortable with. If an init system can bring the system up in correct order and doesn't try to step over every component like systemd does, it's a good init system. I don't care if another init system is 300ms faster than this init system because I don't reboot my system every 10 mins.

Re: probably will stick with runit

Reply #2 –
IMHO, pick one init system, stick with it and master it. That is more important than looking for what's "faster" or "optimal". All init systems supported by Artix work. However, dinit is still pretty fresh and not everything is polished. If you notice a bug, don't hesitate to report it.

Re: probably will stick with runit

Reply #3 –
Agree with the two posts above. I don't really care whether anyone uses OpenRC, runit, s6, 66, or even dinit. Artix exists not to force/encourage anyone into one specific init system.
The reason I implemented runit in Artix in the first place was an interest in alternative implementations of something, and to see if it works in a typical Arch system or not (and I want to see it for myself). So is the reason of me implementing dinit.
If I have no interest in alternative implementations (like dinit, or heck, runit in the first place) at all, I'll probably use plain systemd Arch. (I have no problem with it strictly speaking only the service management part, but it's way too complex (even more than s6) for my liking (and other problems aside of the service management part, which many, many people especially Artix users should already know), besides, the "big" distros use it, so I don't have to implement it).

In any case, pick any from the 5 init+service managers we currently actively support, and enjoy it. I like runit with the good and bad, and I also like dinit, with the good and bad. But for now, since Artix dinit implementation is still in its infancy, I decided to focus on it to see if I can polish it. Enjoy runit on Artix!
now only the dinit guy in artix
 

Re: probably will stick with runit

Reply #4 –
Quote from: replabrobin – on
I managed to duplicate my runit setup with dinit and it was not that hard, but I think I find the simplicity of runit too attractive to switch.

One thing that puts me off is the parallel starting which probably means parallel stopping. Getting a fixed order for start/stop is more important than startup time for me and I understand all of the steps in the runit process.

In addition runit seems well supported in docker land.


runit is indeed slim and simple. However, I like that just like runit, dinit uses filesystem paths and thus filesystem metadata to enable services. I also duplicated my setup with dinit and it seems to be quicker than runit. Artix is doing a great job in making various init systems accessible and interchangeable. In my opinion all distributions should handle it this way.
Code: [Select]
ARTIX Dinit + SDDM + Enlightenment