3 ms·

All that may be true. But I prefer today writing a little file that is a systemd service than fixing up someone else's init scripts. If it is as broken as you

All that may be true. But I prefer today writing a little file that is a systemd service than fixing up someone else's init scripts. If it is as broken as you say why was it adopted?

bitwize 9y ago
Because Lennart has a lot of pull at Red Hat, and Red Hat has a lot of pull in the Linux community. The BSDs have really straightforward to maintain init scripts. Mainly because all the boilerplate junk is hidden in sourced-in files. Runit takes a more advanced approach, but its service files are still simple scripts a few lines long. We don't need a reinvent-the-world solution like systemd to address the most complained about problems with init.
- horusthecat 9y ago
  > Because Lennart has a lot of pull at Red Hat... We don't need a reinvent-the-world solution like systemd to address the most complained about problems with init. You work in software right? You never ever "just" replace a system with an improved feature-alike product, you go apeshit crazy with cool stuff you wanted for the past 5 years but couldn't get approved, until you run out of budget. Duh.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  They're straightforward because they both do less and appeal to she'll scripting to get it done. I specifically want Turing completeness out of my configuration languages.
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    At the rate they are adding and modifying stuff, i am sure we can turn service files touring complete soon enough...
- jcrites 9y ago
  It was adopted because the maintainers of distributions like Debian examined the alternatives and decided that systemd was technically superior. For example, please see the analysis of systemd and upstart by Debian maintainer and then-Technical Committee member Russ Allbery: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/12/msg00234.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/12/msg00234.html
  - JdeBP 9y ago
    > distributions like Debian In fact, only Debian underwent that process. Ubuntu did not. Nor did Fedora. The Arch process was very different. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11834348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11834348
    - digi_owl 9y ago
      Well in a sense Ubuntu did by proxy. A big proponent of systemd within Debian works for Canonical, and Canonical had already stated that if Debian switched they would switch. After all, Ubuntu is basically for Debain what RHEL is for Fedora.

All that may be true. But I prefer today writing a little file that is a systemd service than fixing up someone else's init scripts. If it is as broken as you say why was it adopted?

bitwize 9y ago

Because Lennart has a lot of pull at Red Hat, and Red Hat has a lot of pull in the Linux community. The BSDs have really straightforward to maintain init scripts. Mainly because all the boilerplate junk is hidden in sourced-in files. Runit takes a more advanced approach, but its service files are still simple scripts a few lines long. We don't need a reinvent-the-world solution like systemd to address the most complained about problems with init.

horusthecat 9y ago
> Because Lennart has a lot of pull at Red Hat... We don't need a reinvent-the-world solution like systemd to address the most complained about problems with init. You work in software right? You never ever "just" replace a system with an improved feature-alike product, you go apeshit crazy with cool stuff you wanted for the past 5 years but couldn't get approved, until you run out of budget. Duh.
KirinDave 9y ago
They're straightforward because they both do less and appeal to she'll scripting to get it done. I specifically want Turing completeness out of my configuration languages.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  At the rate they are adding and modifying stuff, i am sure we can turn service files touring complete soon enough...
jcrites 9y ago
It was adopted because the maintainers of distributions like Debian examined the alternatives and decided that systemd was technically superior. For example, please see the analysis of systemd and upstart by Debian maintainer and then-Technical Committee member Russ Allbery: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/12/msg00234.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/12/msg00234.html
- JdeBP 9y ago
  > distributions like Debian In fact, only Debian underwent that process. Ubuntu did not. Nor did Fedora. The Arch process was very different. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11834348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11834348
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    Well in a sense Ubuntu did by proxy. A big proponent of systemd within Debian works for Canonical, and Canonical had already stated that if Debian switched they would switch. After all, Ubuntu is basically for Debain what RHEL is for Fedora.