4 ms·
To be fair, a bus driver probably isn't writing a self-hosted service anyway. So if there is an issue with the service init 3 years later, they will probably f
by jethro_tell 5y ago
To be fair, a bus driver probably isn't writing a self-hosted service anyway. So if there is an issue with the service init 3 years later, they will probably file a bug and let the maintainer handle it. And they wouldn't be parsing a bash script for a sysV-init if that broke either? SysV-init was to complex for the layman as well. Because gracefully starting and stopping system services with their dependency chains is generally too complex for the layman as well.
There's this strange idea that laymen self-hosters are doing all this stuff and the choice of init system matters in the lease. They were going to run the command to start the service blindly regardless of which init system it was and if it breaks, they aren't going to really troubleshoot either one.
- fps_doug 5y agoSure, the bus driver was supposed to represent the other extreme. In reality, they probably wouldn't care no matter how simple the setup is. But the at-least-somewhat-curious non-tech person has probably better chances finding a problem with a systemd service than a sysvinit script, even if they just open a ticket in the end. The info they can provide is more likely to be useful with systemd, I'd argue.
- jethro_tell 5y agoFor the record, I'm a big systemd fan. But to a user, taking a debug log is more or less the same either way. They don't care.