4 ms·

> If I was approaching building an init system I'd make a better language for writing init scripts than bash, some kind of interpreter that processes mostly dec

> If I was approaching building an init system I'd make a better language for writing init scripts than bash, some kind of interpreter that processes mostly declarative init file Guess what systemd does? > sets things up, and then exits And that's the crux of the issue isn't it? Because on modern systems, things need setting up and tearing down all the time.

traverseda 6y ago
> things need setting up and tearing down all the time. Well not really, that's an artifact of systemd's over-engineered design. There's nothing stopping you from tearing something down from an init script or doing more complicated dependency management using the CLI as your RPC mechanism (but red hat needed a reason to use their in-house RPC mechanism). Honestly something like systemd could be pretty reasonable if it wasn't created with the express intent of "combating fragmentation". Not that there aren't a whole bunch of technical and architectural issues with it, but still.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > There's nothing stopping you from tearing something down from an init script Except most init scripts I've seen are rather brittle and only "work" if the PID dance is exactly as the author predicted, are not declarative and hard to debug. I don't want to go back to init scripts, for all systemd's faults, the past was worse. Using the CLI as my RPC mechanism etc. just sounds like I should spend a bunch of time doing work that systemd can do a better job of managing for me.