4 ms·

> This has made it (for me at least) easier to use than Arch/systemd Not to open up that bag of worms, but I haven't heard anyone say Systemd is harder to use.

> This has made it (for me at least) easier to use than Arch/systemd Not to open up that bag of worms, but I haven't heard anyone say Systemd is harder to use. It was made to actually make it easier.

da02 9y ago
I'm willing to admit it could be laziness on my part. It could also be I'm doing something wrong. The info on this page for systemd: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/systemd#Writing_unit_files https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/systemd#Writing_unit_fi... seems harder for me to understand than the info on runit: http://kchard.github.io/runit-quickstart/ http://kchard.github.io/runit-quickstart/
- JdeBP 9y ago
  The Arch wiki doco is also wrong, which probably does not help. There's a glaring error in the first paragraph there. There are in fact nine places where system-level unit files are searched for, not two. Three are in the systemd doco. Three are intentionally undocumented. Two are build-configuration-dependent and usually the same as some of the others. And one was erased from the doco for an clearly invalid reason. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/systemd-documentation-errata.html#MissingUsrLocalLibSystemd http://jdebp.eu./FGA/systemd-documentation-errata.html#Missi...
da02 9y ago
On second thought, you're right. The statment is wrong on my part. Systemd seems to have pleased the Arch developers and made their lives easier. I was trying to say: Void seems easier to use and stable. Thanks for pointing this out. Sorry for my carelessness. (I still would never use a systemd-based distro. I've had fewer problems since leaving it. And I've read too many horror stories to go back. And I suspect it led to many if the problems I had installing and booting. Void has a smaller community than Arch and Ubuntu, yet installs and biots up faster on my junky machines than Arch and Ubuntu. Granted, I can't blame systemd for this.... but I'll include it anyway in the lineup of suspects.)

> This has made it (for me at least) easier to use than Arch/systemd Not to open up that bag of worms, but I haven't heard anyone say Systemd is harder to use. It was made to actually make it easier.

da02 9y ago

I'm willing to admit it could be laziness on my part. It could also be I'm doing something wrong. The info on this page for systemd: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/systemd#Writing_unit_files https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/systemd#Writing_unit_fi... seems harder for me to understand than the info on runit: http://kchard.github.io/runit-quickstart/ http://kchard.github.io/runit-quickstart/

JdeBP 9y ago
The Arch wiki doco is also wrong, which probably does not help. There's a glaring error in the first paragraph there. There are in fact nine places where system-level unit files are searched for, not two. Three are in the systemd doco. Three are intentionally undocumented. Two are build-configuration-dependent and usually the same as some of the others. And one was erased from the doco for an clearly invalid reason. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/systemd-documentation-errata.html#MissingUsrLocalLibSystemd http://jdebp.eu./FGA/systemd-documentation-errata.html#Missi...

da02 9y ago

On second thought, you're right. The statment is wrong on my part. Systemd seems to have pleased the Arch developers and made their lives easier. I was trying to say: Void seems easier to use and stable. Thanks for pointing this out. Sorry for my carelessness. (I still would never use a systemd-based distro. I've had fewer problems since leaving it. And I've read too many horror stories to go back. And I suspect it led to many if the problems I had installing and booting. Void has a smaller community than Arch and Ubuntu, yet installs and biots up faster on my junky machines than Arch and Ubuntu. Granted, I can't blame systemd for this.... but I'll include it anyway in the lineup of suspects.)