Sorry, no. Systemd doesn't add anything for service management that didn't previously exist elsewhere other than the unit file syntax for service definition. W

Sorry, no. Systemd doesn't add anything for service management that didn't previously exist elsewhere other than the unit file syntax for service definition. What it did is pull as many disparate aspects of "how do you run a thing" under its umbrella as it could, so it controls as much of the environment as possible and doesn't have to care about playing nice with anyone else. That's the general approach. It's a logical fallacy to assume, because systemd was the thing that came along and resulted in the problems in sysv being fixed, that systemd's approach or implementation were necessary, desirable, or the best option available.