Re: Runit vs OpenRC
Reply #8 –
I shouldn't say this because I am also an Artix dev, but personally I wouldn't recommend a production system to use any kind of rolling-release distro, systemd-free or not.
However, if you are sure to use Artix, I would recommend to use a system you are familiar with (e.g. if you are familiar with OpenRC, use that).
To answer your question,
1. Yes. It is possible to install an OpenRC-based system from runit iso, vice versa.
2. Artix supports both init systems and I don't see why should we have one "primary" init when we can provide support for both systems.
3. service/initscript-wise, runit's service file is much cleaner than OpenRC (since OpenRC was intended to be compatible with sysvinit). The logging system is also different. runit doesn't need software such as logrotate since svlogd handles logging (if needed) and rotates it automatically. syslog-ng (albeit provided) is also unneeded since runit's alternative implementation of syslog, socklog (you need to install the package separately), also utilizes svlogd, making the use of logrotate package unneeded.
1. In Artix, at least, udev is the only daemon process that is not supervised by runit. It used to be the same in Void, but now in their system, after stage 1, udevd spawned by stage 1 is exited and a new process is spawned to be supervised under runit
2. "Change" is dependent. I'm (obviously) biased since I'm the one who initially ported runit to Artix, but if a source code is stable enough not to have any bug (especially a security risk) for years, I don't really think there should be regular "updates" to add unnecessary features irrelevant to runit's core functions.
Your first link is wrong, should've been http://troubleshooters.com/linux/init/features_and_benefits.htm