3 ms·
Yes, but it would be more useful to compare systemd to something that's actually comparable, i.e. a modern init like shepherd or runit, rather than sysvinit.
by _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
Yes, but it would be more useful to compare systemd to something that's actually comparable, i.e. a modern init like shepherd or runit, rather than sysvinit.
- stephenr 8y agoRunit to the best I can tell doesn’t have a declarative service definition. It executes (albeit simple) scripts in directories. Shepherd service definitions also don’t appear to be declarative, and they’re written in guile, a language I can best sum up as someone’s “hold my beer” response when told Perl was too hard for causal users to understand. Searching for examples of shepherd service definitions gives me one such example: the skeleton example without any details for “Apache”. So sorry but no. Regardless of systemd’s issues those are not comparable alternatives.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago> Regardless of systemd’s issues those are not comparable alternatives. I agree with this, but for different reasons. I have various machines, with various distros, using various init/daemon-managers, including a number of fairly complicated setups (multiple LUKS drives, ZFS, etc.). The systemd systems are invariably more burdensome to maintain, and it's nearly always systemd that's the issue. > and they’re written in guile, a language I can best sum up as someone’s “hold my beer” response when told Perl was too hard for causal users to understand. I agree that the current shepherd configuration itself seems more opaque than one would like, but to compare guile to perl in this fashion is ridiculous. Guile is a Scheme, which means it has consistent, simple syntax and is more easily understandable than C, much less perl.