4 ms·

You refuse to look, and thus have clarity. Dude that is not a good argument. What is not uniform about the previous service handling implementation in debian?

• bjourne 10y ago
  > You refuse to look, and thus have clarity. Dude that is not a good argument. What? Should I have to know everything about systemd to comment on one specific part of it? I don't know about alternative init systems either, all I wrote is that for service management: systemd >> SysV. > What is not uniform about the previous service handling implementation in debian? I can't tell you since I don't use Debian. I can tell you that in Ubuntu there are lots of inconsistencies. Like different service scripts respond differently to the help command. Even the "status" commands output varies between scripts. This means there is no way to introspect a service to know if it supports things like the "restart" command or if "stop" and then "start" should be used instead. This also means that making a robust GUI tool for handling services becomes hard/impossible.
  • 5ilv3r 10y ago
    Ubuntu has used a different init system each time for the last 3 LTS releases. It's only bad because they keep changing it!
  • pdkl95 10y ago
    > systemd >> SysV Why are you framing the conversation as if these were the only options? > I don't know about alternative init systems either Oh, so you are speaking from ignorance. I suggest learning about the alternatives such as OpenRC and the management tools such as daemontools, runit, and s6. There are many solutions to these problems, although they may not be supported (by default?) in your favorite distro. Judging the Linux ecosystem by the failings of one distro isn't helpful.
    • bjourne 10y ago
      Don't be obtuse and don't misunderstand on purpose. It is very clear that I compared SysV vs. systemd in their service/daemon management capabilities and nothing else.