I selected BSD/SysV since all the years I spent working with Unixware was sysV.

Truly I don't know. For me seems questions are not precise. Do OP means 'init' script - script which is marked as 'do not touch at any circumstances' - so I don't even tried to look carefully what is inside. If this is the case: I don't know where the init script comes from, UNIX or BSD. Or OP means scripts put in /etc/rc.d/. Running levels. etc. OpenBSD as I remember is using sysctl command to run or stop service. In Slackware I'm just switching chmod +/- rc.'service' to enable or disable the service. I don't know maybe that solution is just as well very unique to Slackware. Where this comes from? Good question to ask the creator of Slackware.

excellent keynote from the last BSDCan2018
http://www.bsdcan.org/2018/schedule/events/927.en.html
I hope that Slackware deves have half an hour to invest and watch this

Just a friendly reminder.

To stay on-topic I think its somewhat misleading to consider the Slackware init as a BSD or sysv init. Its very possible to run Slackware without a single sysv init script and while you can draw comparisons between /etc/rc.d/ and various BSD styled inits they aren't really the same thing and the similarities are mostly superficial. Personally I think the Slackware init is of a higher quality than the init in an OS like Freebsd.

Poll is not accurate, choices are not clear. As mentioned already there are more than one BSD init, Slackware is BSD like init, did not see that option.

1 members found this post helpful.

As previously stated on the first page:

As previously stated on the first post:

So we know your answer to #1 at least (i.e. if you do choose to vote, options 3 or 4 are what you'd probably pick).

Other: BSD like init.

What about a "no preference" option?

Slackware's heritage for init is clearly BSD, with an added framework for external packages that expect SysV-style init support. However, support has grown over the years for separate scripts for particular services, e.g. MariaDB, ntpd, network, containers, mail routing. It doesn't use the "service start/stop/status/restart" lingo from SysV, but it's still in the same vein of "a little work now saves lots of work later."

I've learned to use both frameworks, and I see the validity in both approaches, so I don't really have a preference.

I watched this keynote on the tube, it's mostly about attempting to port systemd features into FreeBSD (which has a huge repository of similar attempts already).
It's probably not going to happen on NetBSD anytime soon. And Slackware already has a fork which integrates it, so if it comes down to that; it will most certainly have one which disintegrates it.

Additionally, I don't think injecting an exploitable layer between kernel and userspace is a good idea, but it's good to have options for those in need.

1 members found this post helpful.

They say the Slackware uses a BSD-style init... but, having experimented with many of the *BSDs, my thought is that they're not even close.

IMNSHO, Slackware's init is what a BSD-style init could be if it grew up.

If you do this in stock Slackware:
you will have the ability to install packages that require SysV init, and they will properly work along side the already installed "BSD-style" scripts with no further intervention.

That is a truly great feature of Slackware.

For software that needs an init script, it is not easy to package "BSD-style" init scripts. On the other hand, it is trivially easy to do so with SysV init style scripts. All you need are a couple of symlinks, and it works with no further intervention. No need to manually edit anything; just put the right file in the right place and it works.

I don't believe Slackware's init is as easily defined as many people seem to believe it is. It is a "hybrid" system built for convenience from common sense.

So, my answer to the OP is:

https://i.imgur.com/s4eamxv.jpg

2 members found this post helpful.

Don't know a lot about Slackware but I understand that it uses BSD init. When it comes to preferences, I say BSD every time. It boots much faster and it uses a few simple scripts, not a battery of complex ones. Sysv init requires a whole directory of links for each run level, whereas bsd init requires only one script file per run level. I use bsd init on my LFS system, although that's not what the book recommends. And my Crux system uses it too.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks rkelsen.

Much more eloquently expressed than my reply on this thread.

If Slackware did not provide a hybrid system, I couldn't use it without a lot of scary and fragile kludges because I am a long time VMWare User and VMWare expects a SysV Init System.

Thanks again.

-- kjh( Poll: does a pomegranate more closely represent an apple or an orange ? )

i voted sysV/sysV wrongfully
Slackware uses the most convenient init system I encountered yet

Noted. So what should I mark you down for?

There are 2 questions and I can't tell which one you're attempting to answer with that image.

If that image is supposed to answer the first, then as previously stated in response to kjhambrick:

I voted bsd/sysv. I consider Slackware to be BSD oriented. It has run levels but, at least on my system, they are empty.

I slightly prefer sysv since you just drop an rc file in place and it is automagically run at boot time. I find with Slackware/BSD I have to put too much in rc.local.

But this is just a quibble. I am perfectly happy with the Slackware init system... unlike some others that Shall Not Be Named.