Brian Masinick
@calciumsodium: I’m glad to see upon testing with various combinations that you’ve had better success with both the runit and sysvinit images.
I was testing the b1 sysvinit image and then I went back to one of my installed instances – I have an a2 runit instance and a b1 sysvinit instance.
When I check out the installed instances, I discovered that though one of them started with a2 and the other with b1, the only practical differences were:
1) the name of the starting image and
2) the init style, runit or sysvinit.
Installed and updated, except for these two things (and any software differences, which are indistinguishable; I installed the same stuff, the two of the systems are functional equivalents. Yes, they have different init images and different release identifiers, but in every practical way they function the same. Yes, the start up, shutdown and scheduling programs differ, but otherwise this a2 and b1 comparison behaves the same; both work well, both are tight, lean, efficient, and work very well.
Running their live instances was similar too, differing only in the versions of scheduling code and visual identifiers.
I know that we still have some hardware support issues for some devices and a few minor defects in other areas, but for me, this stuff is running great. I’ve been using nothing else today and I haven’t had a single failure with either instance, whether running on the live media or the installed instance.
--
Brian Masinick
Alternate "Search B":
This search page