4 ms·
You do realise that sysvinit scripts are much, much, much more fragile? Systemd has its share of problems but it's vastly better than a bag of spaghetti shell
by vkazanov 3y ago
You do realise that sysvinit scripts are much, much, much more fragile?
Systemd has its share of problems but it's vastly better than a bag of spaghetti shell scripts.
- haolez 3y agoThe bag of spaghetti in systemd's case is not visible to you, but it's there in thousands and thousands of C code (and I use systemd).
- sophacles 3y agoCan you define spaghetti in this context, and point to examples in the code?
- haolez 3y agoMy point is that the complexity is still there, but hidden. There is good and bad code in systemd as there is good and bad sysv init scripts.
- vkazanov 3y agoYes, systemd is far from trivial. The model of its operation is rather convoluted. But most people just don't care. long running applications are wrapped in a control group, can be reliably killed, stopped, etc. There some questions around binary logs, yes, but nothing truly unbearable.
- kaba0 3y agoWhich is the proper place for complexity to live in and get properly tested by millions of boots each minute. Remember, essential complexity of a task can never be reduced. As opposed to that shitty bash script you pasted from 3 stackoverflow answers that already has 3 bugs just from existing, let alone all the indeterminacy that comes with it execution with all the other similarly shitty bash scripts, all unique to your system.