5 ms·

I have serious dislike for what I perceive as (unnecessary) complexity of Systemd. I made a quick analysis of different init systems when that nigh-unavoidabili

I have serious dislike for what I perceive as (unnecessary) complexity of Systemd. I made a quick analysis of different init systems when that nigh-unavoidability had not yet happened. OpenRC seemed then the most reasonable of the ones I read about (for qualities I have since forgotten), and your comment stirred this memory. So, a question: why did/do you like using it?

bamfly 3y ago
Found the ergonomics of rc-update and other commands exceptionally decent, and consistent enough that I could usually guess the correct invocation even if I hadn't used it in a while. Never saw it break or tie itself in knots (which, on Gentoo, at least as I managed my Gentoo systems, was an accomplishment). I find the config syntax non-awful. Every other init system I've tried is worse (IMO, obviously) on one or more of those fronts, and not enough-better on any others to make up for it.
- mid-kid 3y ago
  my biggest pet peeve is having "rc-update <action> <name>" vs "rc-service <name> <action>". systemctl does this consistently, at least.
esarbe 3y ago
With Systemd you have a configuration language and a defined surface. With OpenRC you have unconstained init scrips written in a Turing-complete language. How exactly is Systemd more complex?
- taneliv 3y ago
  Whether it is actually more complex, I don't know. I didn't claim so for actual reasons, and your comment is one of them. I'm just a user, not a package or system maintainer, whose opinions are way more substantive than mine. Distributions have overwhelmingly chosen Systemd, so it seems obvious that it offers real benefits (including simplicity, I must assume). As a user I just lament the missed opportunity to simplify the system and service management also from my point of view. I don't see Systemd as simpler than other init systems, just different.

5 ms·

I have serious dislike for what I perceive as (unnecessary) complexity of Systemd. I made a quick analysis of different init systems when that nigh-unavoidabili

by taneliv 3y ago

bamfly 3y ago
Found the ergonomics of rc-update and other commands exceptionally decent, and consistent enough that I could usually guess the correct invocation even if I hadn't used it in a while. Never saw it break or tie itself in knots (which, on Gentoo, at least as I managed my Gentoo systems, was an accomplishment). I find the config syntax non-awful. Every other init system I've tried is worse (IMO, obviously) on one or more of those fronts, and not enough-better on any others to make up for it.
- mid-kid 3y ago
  my biggest pet peeve is having "rc-update <action> <name>" vs "rc-service <name> <action>". systemctl does this consistently, at least.
esarbe 3y ago
With Systemd you have a configuration language and a defined surface. With OpenRC you have unconstained init scrips written in a Turing-complete language. How exactly is Systemd more complex?
- taneliv 3y ago
  Whether it is actually more complex, I don't know. I didn't claim so for actual reasons, and your comment is one of them. I'm just a user, not a package or system maintainer, whose opinions are way more substantive than mine. Distributions have overwhelmingly chosen Systemd, so it seems obvious that it offers real benefits (including simplicity, I must assume). As a user I just lament the missed opportunity to simplify the system and service management also from my point of view. I don't see Systemd as simpler than other init systems, just different.