3 ms·

Please stop perpetuating the false dichotomy of systemd versus sysvinit, it gets tiring. [1] One does not "write services" in systemd. One configures manifests

Please stop perpetuating the false dichotomy of systemd versus sysvinit, it gets tiring. [1] One does not "write services" in systemd. One configures manifests for services in the unit file format, which is internally translated into a Unit object, used for representing various system resources, including services (service actions being queued as another internal unit type, that of jobs). "systemd is far easier to maintain" is not measurable in any way. In fact, given it expects a particular FHS [2], has a lot in the way of needing optimization [3], has a rapid pace of development, adds a complicated transactional dependency system based on seven different job queuing modes and undocumented heuristics, the evidence would point that it is not. Indeed, I do recall Dave Reisner of Arch Linux complaining about systemd's pace and its poor test suite, requiring lots of patching. [1] http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ [2] http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file-hierarchy.html http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file-hierarc... [3] https://wiki.freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/Optimizations/ https://wiki.freedesktop.org/www/Software/systemd/Optimizati...

chimeracoder 11y ago
> Please stop perpetuating the false dichotomy of systemd versus sysvinit, it gets tiring. It's hardly a false dichotomy to compare what a distro was using previously to what they are using today, which is what I did (and what OP asked for). > Indeed, I do recall Dave Reisner of Arch Linux complaining about systemd's pace and its poor test suite, requiring lots of patching. I didn't say it was perfect, and in fact, I have a long list of complaints about the initial switch in Arch (though not Debian). That doesn't negate the point that the reason Arch (and other distros) dropped support for sysvinit was that there ended up being insufficient interest from maintainers in maintaining it.

chimeracoder 11y ago

> Please stop perpetuating the false dichotomy of systemd versus sysvinit, it gets tiring. It's hardly a false dichotomy to compare what a distro was using previously to what they are using today, which is what I did (and what OP asked for). > Indeed, I do recall Dave Reisner of Arch Linux complaining about systemd's pace and its poor test suite, requiring lots of patching. I didn't say it was perfect, and in fact, I have a long list of complaints about the initial switch in Arch (though not Debian). That doesn't negate the point that the reason Arch (and other distros) dropped support for sysvinit was that there ended up being insufficient interest from maintainers in maintaining it.