Talk:Init

message: I removed this:
Opinions on the relative merits of different schemes can be strongly held, leading both to occasional "flame wars", and also to the development of several alternatives.
seemed like fluff. Hotdogger 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it didn't belong in the introduction like that, and was unreferenced to boot.  A "History" section would be a better place to discuss the actual flame wars, if any, that have occurred. John Vandenberg 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence from intro 

message: Hey, this'll be my very first Wiki edit. Go me. :) Anyway, this page seems very Linux-centric, even though the init program is present (but behaves differently) on every Unix system. For example, while runlevel 5 may be the default on many Linux distributions, if you switched a Sun/Solaris machine to runlevel 5, it would physically turn itself off. That might come as a bit of a nasty surprise if you're not expecting it. I've added a note to that effect. 207.96.8.128 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, nice job. I further explained that with AIX, and Solaris, the default run levels are different. Now I wonder, should the default runlevels be put into a table for easier readability. This table would also help make the whole article seem less Linux-centric. --Unixguy 19:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linux-centric?

message: This article is taking shape nicely, but I think it could use a couple of examples.
 Example inittab files
   Typical SUSE inittab:
(paste here)
   Typical Solaris inittab:
is:3:initdefault:
sS:s:wait:/sbin/rcS                     >/dev/msglog 2<>/dev/msglog </dev/console
s0:0:wait:/sbin/rc0                     >/dev/msglog 2<>/dev/msglog </dev/console
s1:1:respawn:/sbin/rc1                  >/dev/msglog 2<>/dev/msglog </dev/console
s2:23:wait:/sbin/rc2                    >/dev/msglog 2<>/dev/msglog </dev/console
s3:3:wait:/sbin/rc3                     >/dev/msglog 2<>/dev/msglog </dev/console
s5:5:wait:/sbin/rc5                     >/dev/msglog 2<>/dev/msglog </dev/console
s6:6:wait:/sbin/rc6                     >/dev/msglog 2<>/dev/msglog </dev/console
   Typical AIX inittab:
init:2:initdefault:
l2:2:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 2
l3:3:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 3
l4:4:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 4
l5:5:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 5
l6:6:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 6
l7:7:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 7
l8:8:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 8
l9:9:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 9
--Unixguy 00:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, adding examples would probably be too technical, and not of much value to an online encyclopedia. --Unixguy 16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples needed 

message: I don't think they should be merged; They are so related, but they are not the same. Callmejosh (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion about merging init and runlevel

message: "init is the program on Unix and Unix-like systems that spawns all other processes."
Does init really spawn all processes, so for example a webbrowser that a user requested to start from a GUI is also spawned through init's services? --Abdull (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Init doesn't spawn all processes. It spawns its child processes which in return spawn their child processes etc. According to pstree on my system though a webbrowser is really a child of init. It would be correct to say that init is a common ancestor of all processes. 174.6.87.98 (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a child of init because it was re-parented, not because init created your web browser as a child. Justinc (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  All processes? 

message: The article lists KahelOS as having a replacement for traditional init; it used to say
and now says
The first of those, at least, gave a real name, "DEMONS", to the start process; the second of those changes the spelling and capitalization of the name, and just links to a page about the concept of a "daemon" in computing, which does not make it clearer.  The change also added a reference, but all it says is
:We have introduced an innovative change to the way daemons are loaded on startup. The traditional approach is to load all the daemons one by one or concurrently at startup before the GDM GUI appears. This approach is much slower because the system is sharing more resources on other daemons instead of just loading the GUI.
:Now, KahelOS just loads the GDM GUI making the GUI instantly appear, then loads the rest of the daemons when a user has logged-in.
which doesn't say what program runs as process 1 or, if it's an existing program rather than a new program, how the configuration was changed.  Apparently KahelOS is based on Arch Linux; the systemd page claims that Arch Linux uses systemd by default as of October 2012.  Systemd is supposed to launch daemons on demand, so its approach isn't to load "all the daemons"; did they just configure it to launch GDM and "loads the rest of the daemons when a user has logged-in" by virtue of the demand for those daemons coming from programs run when the user logs in (possibly requiring other aspects of the system to be changed so that no daemons other than GDM are demanded until a user logs in), or did they replace systemd with some other program? Guy Harris (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What program does process 1 on KahelOS run? 

message: Those aren't "replacements" for init, those are just additional implementations of an init daemon that don't fall into either the "BSD-style" or "SystemV-style" classifications. They're still init daemons themselves though. They're not "replacements" for init, they are init. The thing they're replacing is SystemV-init, not init itself. Since this article is about init in general, and not SysV-init, the way this is currently phrased is a non-sequitur. Systemd's init process, for example, is an init in its own right, not a "replacement for init".Nlburgin (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Replacements" for init? I don't think so. 

message: A "Failed reference" tag was added to the init(8) man page at TUHS reference for the "AT&T's UNIX System III introduced a new style of system startup configuration" claim.
The man page is, unfortunately, *roff plus -man macros, i.e. source code, rather than formatted, making it harder to read, but it does describe init as having multiple run-levels (called "states" in the S3 man page).
What more is needed to verify the claim? Guy Harris (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  System III init man page doesn't support the claim that S3 introduced a new init style?