2 ms·

Yeah it really is complicated, probably just very familiar to you. I Google systemD the first result has 160 sections just in the documentation table of conten

by soheil 6y ago

Yeah it really is complicated, probably just very familiar to you. I Google systemD the first result has 160 sections just in the documentation table of contents alone [0]. [0] https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/

viraptor 6y ago
The linked page is not a documentation ToC. Why would you claim that? For day to day usage there are two man pages which should be enough for reference: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exec.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exe... and https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.service.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.ser... Or you could start with one of the blog posts linked in the page you referenced.
- SSLy 6y ago
  By his peculiar capitalization you can tell he's a hater that still hasn't come to terms with it, 10 years later.
  - soheil 6y ago
    Using camel case means I'm a hater?
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    Or is tired of systemd being auto corrected to systems.
- soheil 6y ago
  The first link you sent is 1024 lines long, do you genuinely believe using something like this is preferred to a simple shell script + nohup? I'm amazed at the hoops some devs jump through just to get to work with their favorite tool.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    That script is never going to be simple in a few years. You're going to keep adding features to it with time until it badly implementsa tiny fraction of what you already had available in your init system. The question could be: why spend time rewriting a broken restart script if you already have a good version available behind a config switch. If you don't like how long that man page is, you should check the size of bash+nohub man page which you'd otherwise need :-)
    - soheil 6y ago
      bash + nohup are elementary parts of using Linux, systemD is not and therefore learning it is added complexity.

by soheil 6y ago

viraptor 6y ago

The linked page is not a documentation ToC. Why would you claim that? For day to day usage there are two man pages which should be enough for reference: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exec.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exe... and https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.service.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.ser... Or you could start with one of the blog posts linked in the page you referenced.

SSLy 6y ago
By his peculiar capitalization you can tell he's a hater that still hasn't come to terms with it, 10 years later.
- soheil 6y ago
  Using camel case means I'm a hater?
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  Or is tired of systemd being auto corrected to systems.
soheil 6y ago
The first link you sent is 1024 lines long, do you genuinely believe using something like this is preferred to a simple shell script + nohup? I'm amazed at the hoops some devs jump through just to get to work with their favorite tool.
- viraptor 6y ago
  That script is never going to be simple in a few years. You're going to keep adding features to it with time until it badly implementsa tiny fraction of what you already had available in your init system. The question could be: why spend time rewriting a broken restart script if you already have a good version available behind a config switch. If you don't like how long that man page is, you should check the size of bash+nohub man page which you'd otherwise need :-)
  - soheil 6y ago
    bash + nohup are elementary parts of using Linux, systemD is not and therefore learning it is added complexity.