3 ms·
Changing the syntax of scripts managing devices and services is hardly an improvement by itself. Yes there are some ideas which have resulted in more useful too
by mfukar 10y ago
Changing the syntax of scripts managing devices and services is hardly an improvement by itself. Yes there are some ideas which have resulted in more useful tools for administrators (systemd-analyze and friends), along with more predictable behaviour which again helps administrators a lot, but apart from those systemd is just "fixing" things which were never an issue for the desktop user.
- SwellJoe 10y ago"Changing the syntax of scripts managing devices and services is hardly an improvement by itself." That's not what has been done. systemd unit files are not "scripts". They are declarative configuration files, usually orders of magnitude smaller than the initscripts, network scripts, etc. that they replace. The Apache unit file on RHEL7 is ~17 lines long, and it replaced an initscript that was a couple hundred lines long. It is a difference of both degree and kind.
- makomk 10y agoExcept that the more complex unit files still rely on shell scripts - they're just split off into separate files in another directory. systemd simplified init scripts by spraying their content over half a dozen or more different files and then only advertising the size of one them.
- jononor 10y agoGot any examples?
- mfukar 10y agoThere's script & executable invocations inside systemd service files as well. They're simply handled differently. Some setups use dedicated units to just do `modprobe X`, and have "easy" dependency management. Some are replacing udev rulesets with systemd units, none of which are "orders of magnitude smaller". Just saying, the de facto ways of using systemd are starting to diverge a lot from the intended behaviour. And of course, the de facto usage is what we'll judge each piece of software's merits on...eventually.
- untoreh 10y agoI wouldn't call that diverting, but adapting already available scripts to systemd, and eventually they'll get rewritten
- mfukar 10y agoPresenting the need to rewrite service scripts as an inevitability is not convincing anybody - and I hate shell scripts more than most.
- SwellJoe 10y agosystemd has an initscript compatibility layer; it works with initscripts, and there is no expiration date on that functionality, to my knowledge. What more do you want?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- untoreh 10y agoI never said that they are going to be forcefully rewritten, I meant that whoever maintains initscripts might eventually rewrite them using systemd units more tightly because they are going be simpler and easier to maintain (in general, not because systemd is making anything any harder). You will still run something with systemd, this something can be the plain executable or an initscript, it is not like systemd checks and makes sure it likes whatever it is running...
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y agoIf you're only a desktop user, where do you interact with systemd at all? I am, and I certainly don't.
- mfukar 10y agoPrecisely. No desktop user ever interacts with the init system. On the other hand, Linux has a history of _forcing_ desktop users to mess with device management for the simplest of tasks, e.g. making their audio devices work.
- alphapapa 10y ago> No desktop user ever interacts with the init system. So you've never restarted a service on your desktop system?