"It's obvious that the author of this article has never actually used systemd." There's no need to start your article by being a douchebag. You could just make

"It's obvious that the author of this article has never actually used systemd." There's no need to start your article by being a douchebag. You could just make your point. Also, I don't think you really got it right here. His point is that lots of functionality has moved from shell scripts to C. Yes, you have an ini-style configuration file. That's not the same as a shell script. postfix took the simple-flat-config-file model whereas exim provides a much richer language. Some years ago I attempted to do something slightly odd for SQL auth in both, and found that postfix only let me use SASL, and SASL didn't have a driver for what I wanted, and therefore in order to make it do what I wanted I needed to write a C-based SASL driver to execute the SQL I wanted. In exim it was 3 or 4 lines of config. Similarly, if I hit something systemd can't do I now have to write C to add a config file, rather than write a couple of lines of shell. that is what the author means. I could certainly see an advantage to providing an ini-based approach as well for people who regard current LSB conmpliant init scripts as "shell scripts that made no sense to me" - and for people like me who -do- love them, but would be quite happy with a simple way to configure simple things. But please don't try and take that power away from me when I need it.