4 ms·

A good description of why it's superior to init scripts: https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/4lzxs3/why_did_archlinux_embrace_systemd/d3rhxlc https://ww

A good description of why it's superior to init scripts: https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/4lzxs3/why_did_archlinux_embrace_systemd/d3rhxlc https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/4lzxs3/why_did_a... I don't know enough about resolved to comment on this new development, but as a sysadmin I much prefer systemd as an init system.

dkarapetyan 10y ago
Upstart wasn't bad at all. It actually worked really well. I've never dealt with other init scripts but now that my dev/deploy target is freebsd I don't really see any issues with shell scripts as init scripts either. I don't need any fancy parallelization and socket activation and all that fancy jazz for a backend server.
- pas 10y ago
  It was unfinished, almost unmaintained, and basically left for dead. It was (and is still) a lot better than shell scripts, but the problem (of system [lifecycle] management, including initialization) is complex and hard to isolate/decouple and evolve in a sane manner.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  > I don't need any fancy parallelization and socket activation and all that fancy jazz for a backend server. And that is perhaps the red line. Those that have embraced systemd seems to be made up of cloud/container/web people that worry about being able to take something from 1 to 1 million servers in a heartbeat. Those that do not see the need are all those that for years have been running Linux using sysv or alternatives on the backend for various uses.
JdeBP 10y ago
Now read these * http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ * http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ and realize that you've brought out the same old tired red herring again. See also Hacker News: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11846335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11846335 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11814419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11814419

dkarapetyan 10y ago

Upstart wasn't bad at all. It actually worked really well. I've never dealt with other init scripts but now that my dev/deploy target is freebsd I don't really see any issues with shell scripts as init scripts either. I don't need any fancy parallelization and socket activation and all that fancy jazz for a backend server.

pas 10y ago
It was unfinished, almost unmaintained, and basically left for dead. It was (and is still) a lot better than shell scripts, but the problem (of system [lifecycle] management, including initialization) is complex and hard to isolate/decouple and evolve in a sane manner.
digi_owl 10y ago
> I don't need any fancy parallelization and socket activation and all that fancy jazz for a backend server. And that is perhaps the red line. Those that have embraced systemd seems to be made up of cloud/container/web people that worry about being able to take something from 1 to 1 million servers in a heartbeat. Those that do not see the need are all those that for years have been running Linux using sysv or alternatives on the backend for various uses.

JdeBP 10y ago

Now read these * http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ * http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ and realize that you've brought out the same old tired red herring again. See also Hacker News: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11846335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11846335 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11814419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11814419