I read a bit about init systems and as far as I can tell Slackware uses the modified Sys V/BSD style init. Is that correct, and is there a name for it? Also, since systemd seems to be all the rage these days are there plans for Slackware to adopt it?

Can't tell for PV, but can tell the idea is much how to avoid systemd than when to adopt these days.

Since ConsoleKit2 makes it so far, I'll bet things will remain as is for a while.

please don't start another systemd thread: they were banned from this forum section by Jeremy himself.

if you feel like having more information on the matter use the search function of the forum.

Yes, no and no.
FWIW - Slackware does not follow rages, and true Slackers like it that way.

6 members found this post helpful.

All my questions are answered, thanks.

Slackware's init system is often called several names at times but none are really official:

Slackware-init
bsdinit
bsd-style sysvinit
bsd-sysvinit
Slack-init

And I've seen and used more, but technically it's just "init".

Currently you'll have to ask Patrick, but from seeing the alternative software being used that supplicants out systemd, I'd guess things are staying true to Slackware's fine tradition of simplicity. There is an offshoot called Dlackware, so check it out.

The only other thing Slackware has are init helpers which are available on SBo, namely runit and OpenRC, and personally, OpenRC fits very warm and cozy into Slackware and only requires a script package change. Runit is a bit more involved and needs custom scripts to work, but whatever floats your boat... use it.

1 members found this post helpful.

I and many other slackers all over the world pray for Patrick not to use systemd ever.

7 members found this post helpful.

Agreed.


Edit: now can we all please let this thread fade away?

I'm not sure where that perception came from, but it isn't the case. http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5362826 is an example of what I've said on the topic in the past. I did once say "Additional threads created for the sole purpose of arguing over systemd will result in closures and/or bans", but the sole purpose of arguing should be taken as the important bit of that statement.

--jeremy

4 members found this post helpful.

sorry if I misunderstood and I reported wrong statements: I based my claim on what I remembered and something I found with the search, like https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...9/#post5382514 or
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...2/#post5409927 but if I had looked better I would have noticed the important bit, my bad.
sorry again.

There was some misunderstanding amongst the mod team based on what I said, which I take full responsibility for. I've cleared things up in that regard and hopefully the LQ position on the topic is better understood moving forward. I apologize it wasn't more clear from the beginning.

--jeremy

1 members found this post helpful.

Very true.

The move to eudev was good, I can now resume with kernel 4, was stuck on 3.18, so I think change will come out of necessity.