5 ms·

I concur. Before systemd, I used supervisor because I wanted to avoid using any init system like hell. Since systemd, I just do a service file. So despite all

I concur. Before systemd, I used supervisor because I wanted to avoid using any init system like hell. Since systemd, I just do a service file. So despite all its shortcommings, I now have a standard, well documented, init system that I can use accross all the distros I use, which happens to provide all the features I need. I'm sure all the power user complaints about systemd are legitimate, but I really don't care about those. I just want an easy way to setup custom deamon on ubuntu and centos. Provide a better system, that solve those problems, and I'll use it. I really don't care as long as my problem is solved.

onli 8y ago
> So despite all its shortcommings, I now have a standard, well documented, init system that I can use accross all the distros I use, which happens to provide all the features I need. Same couldn't be said about supervisor, the solution you already had running (well, maybe strike init)?
- sametmax 8y ago
  It's not installed by default on any distro. I don't want to install something as basic as an init system. And it's not installed by default because it doesn't solve the problem of a service dependancy graph.
  - onli 8y ago
    Sorry, but that first argument seems a bit random to me. Couldn't even use a proper editor like nano with that argumentation, having a usable editor available is after all also pretty basic. I doubt that supervisor is not installed because of not solving something it evidently does not want to solve, but that argument at least looks valid to me. Just in case you are not aware, https://github.com/Supervisor/supervisor/issues/122 https://github.com/Supervisor/supervisor/issues/122 lists two solutions (wait_for_it.sh and a supervisor plugin that adds dependency resolution).
    - kbenson 8y ago
      I think "basic" in this case means "integral to the system". Many people don't want to replace the init system, nor the desktop display system, nor an authentication system (e.g. PAM). The more systems something sits under the more places there are for it to cause a problem because it doesn't work quite how the upper components expect. At a bare minimum, you'll often run into problems with the included package management system (and how it may reload systems for security purposes after patching) if you don't take care. nano sits on top of everything, and the few things that might rely on it use a very standard and not very extensible interface (the EDITOR environment var). It's not really equivalent at all.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      > proper editor like nano Not sure what your point is (well ok, I am, and I agree), but you just lost
    - sametmax 8y ago
      I'm not tring to convince you, i'm sharing my pov. Systemd is here because of pov like this, and people not liking it end up with it anyway because they fail to aknowledge others pov.
- isostatic 8y ago
  systemd is far more than an init system though, it's a total rethink of how linux systems are controlled and managed. Rewatch the first half of the video and imagine it was a bunch of random tools with proper names (like grep, ntpd, syslogd) etc, that had all been built separately but happen to nicely tie into each other, rather than "systemd-blah"

onli 8y ago

> So despite all its shortcommings, I now have a standard, well documented, init system that I can use accross all the distros I use, which happens to provide all the features I need. Same couldn't be said about supervisor, the solution you already had running (well, maybe strike init)?

sametmax 8y ago
It's not installed by default on any distro. I don't want to install something as basic as an init system. And it's not installed by default because it doesn't solve the problem of a service dependancy graph.
- onli 8y ago
  Sorry, but that first argument seems a bit random to me. Couldn't even use a proper editor like nano with that argumentation, having a usable editor available is after all also pretty basic. I doubt that supervisor is not installed because of not solving something it evidently does not want to solve, but that argument at least looks valid to me. Just in case you are not aware, https://github.com/Supervisor/supervisor/issues/122 https://github.com/Supervisor/supervisor/issues/122 lists two solutions (wait_for_it.sh and a supervisor plugin that adds dependency resolution).
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I think "basic" in this case means "integral to the system". Many people don't want to replace the init system, nor the desktop display system, nor an authentication system (e.g. PAM). The more systems something sits under the more places there are for it to cause a problem because it doesn't work quite how the upper components expect. At a bare minimum, you'll often run into problems with the included package management system (and how it may reload systems for security purposes after patching) if you don't take care. nano sits on top of everything, and the few things that might rely on it use a very standard and not very extensible interface (the EDITOR environment var). It's not really equivalent at all.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    > proper editor like nano Not sure what your point is (well ok, I am, and I agree), but you just lost
  - sametmax 8y ago
    I'm not tring to convince you, i'm sharing my pov. Systemd is here because of pov like this, and people not liking it end up with it anyway because they fail to aknowledge others pov.
isostatic 8y ago
systemd is far more than an init system though, it's a total rethink of how linux systems are controlled and managed. Rewatch the first half of the video and imagine it was a bunch of random tools with proper names (like grep, ntpd, syslogd) etc, that had all been built separately but happen to nicely tie into each other, rather than "systemd-blah"