4 ms·
Depends on what you are doing. Init scripts where simpler because the boot process was well defined, meaning that you had all your scripts in rc.d that were ex
by alerighi 6y ago
Depends on what you are doing.
Init scripts where simpler because the boot process was well defined, meaning that you had all your scripts in rc.d that were executed in that particular order.
Now with systemd is more difficult to have something start after something else, you have all the dependencies and if you get them wrong it will not work. Worse, the boot process is no longer deterministic, meaning that 99 times it could work and it could break the 100th time.
On the other side, systemd is a necessary evil for a modern desktop system, where you have multiple events that could fire (hotplug, network, power events, etc). But not so sure if it's that necessary for a server or an embedded device.
- otabdeveloper4 6y ago> Now with systemd is more difficult to have something start after something else Not really, it's just one simple line in a unit file. (https://fedoramagazine.org/systemd-unit-dependencies-and-order/ https://fedoramagazine.org/systemd-unit-dependencies-and-ord...)
- corty 6y agoNo. First, you usually need both, Want= and After=. Second, that After= isn't really "after" in the traditional sense, because systemd will start A, not wait for A to be up and running and immediately after the "A has been started"-event start B. If you really want A to be available when B is started (which is the traditional init-script sense of "after") you need to modify the software A to signal completion to systemd or you need some horrible shellscript cludges in the Exec=-line of B that checks for the availability of A. Or an inbetween unit with a Exec=sleep 5 or something. Claiming "it is just 1 line" is either inexperience or dishonesty.