> Arguing that the advantage of systemd is portability is rather bold! It's merely a statement of fact, systemd services accept the same set of commands across

> Arguing that the advantage of systemd is portability is rather bold! It's merely a statement of fact, systemd services accept the same set of commands across distros, which is rather unlike SysV. > It's poor quality, non-consistent and non-deterministic if you write them that way. That's a bullshit statement, because everything fits it. Of course everything is great if you make it great. And? The point is that systemd's declarative nature makes it hard to screw up services and even badly written ones will get enough common functionality for free that they'd be usable. > Systemd has been pushed down everybody's throat for a while now, saying retroactively that people use it because they find it valuable is a bit of a stretch. Systemd got adopted because people generally found it valuable enough to adopt over what they had before. > Maybe it's nicer for the people writing the unit files, doesn't mean that it's a good thing for people actually having to use them Matter of opinion, but I happen to think that having a uniform set of commands working at work and at home is nicer for users too, over the patchwork of scripts that SysV was across the various distros.