Which Style Init Scripts Do You Prefer?

An anonymous reader asks: "I started using Linux years ago, with a Red Hat distribution. When Red Hat's custom configurations started getting in my way, I jumped ship to Slackware. I have never looked back except that I cannot stand the BSD style init scripts. I like having a full compliment of run-levels and control on the fly over which scripts will be running, and which ones will not. That is hard to achieve, when you put multiple configurations in the same file. I also liked having the scripts around to start, stop, and restart services. While I was rewriting my own startup scripts [based on Debian's scripts], I discovered that there is a third style, based on dependencies. AFAIK this is the style adopted by Gentoo. I don't want to start a distro war; but, I am curious about what kind of init scripts Slashdot readers prefer, and what they think are the benefits of each."

Comments

Slackware's init

[c.r.o.c.o]

You will pry the Slackware init scripts from my cold dead hands!

On a more serious note, I had always run Slackware on my gateways (about 6 years total), so I know the scripts pretty much inside and out. I have a lot of very specialised scripts that I wrote from scratch tailored specifically for my gateway and home network. But on my workstation I tried a variety of distribuitons, and for a very long time I ran RedHat (from rh4.2 to rh7.3.), mainly because I enjoyed constantly upgrading rpms and trying out new things.

I ran into the same problem you did around the time RedHad came out with rh8.0. I found it amost impossible to track every config file in /etc, because of RedHat's non-standard installation. Not to mention the mass of files in /etc and all over the hdd that I had NO ideea what their purpose was. At that point I realised that the advantage of rpms was far outweighed by the horrible system management in RedHat. Then I tried pretty much all distros out there, and I finally settled on Slackware for my workstation and laptop as well.

I happen to like the BSD style scripts. They make maintainance a breeze, and they almost never need to be changed. Even when I reinstall Slack (for whatever reason, last time it was a hdd starting to fail), I find that most scripts and config files can just be copied over to the new distro. I actually had a masquarading script that lasted me from kernel 2.0.20 untill 2.4.x was released.

So there you have it, I _love_ the Slack init scripts. I'm not sure there are much better ones out there in terms of simplicity and complete control. Sure, maybe RedHat's linuxconf (is that thing still around?) may make changing stuff and automation easier, but at a significant loss of control. And God forbit you fubar linuxconf's dependencies so you can't run it. Then you'll really appreciate Slackware.

BSD-style

[ctr2sprt]

The thing I like most about BSD-style scripts is that they don't insist on starting and killing daemons one at a time. They also allow for asymmetric scripts, sort of; Linux tends to kill every service individually on shutdown, which is really annoying because it takes forever. 99.9% of programs can handle kill -TERM -1 && sleep 5 && kill -KILL -1, which init does automatically when it changes runlevels. I guess it's nothing inherent in SysV-style scripts I dislike; it's the way they're used.

I don't think the lack of "/etc/init.d/daemon stop" is that big a disadvantage. "killall daemon" works just as well - in fact, that's all most stop scripts do. The only thing you lose is the pretty color graphics.

This is definitely prime material for a religious war, though, as neither approach offers any real benefit. You can easily make either approach do whatever you want. With SysV-style scripts, it's slightly easier to let packages say how they should be started; with BSD-style scripts, it's slightly easier to understand the "big picture."