> This shows a lack of understanding. I would say your comment either shows a lack of understanding, or that you completely missed the point. > The example of

> This shows a lack of understanding. I would say your comment either shows a lack of understanding, or that you completely missed the point. > The example of "writing your own script" is no different to a non-systemd system. Why would a script work or not work based on systemd? Of course, you can write the service itself in Python or Ruby or whatever regardless the service manager. The point is that with systemd, or upstart, or other service managers like this that make things more declarative (launchd?), you don't have to write a script to manage the service at all. On systemd, you declare which services yours depend on, how to run it, which user should be used to run your service, and many things are handled for you, including many security mechanisms you don't need to think about and provide further config for this stuff that would be a mess to handle with the traditional way of writing a custom rc script per service. The problem is not being able to write in languages like ruby or python. It's to have to write something at all. systemd makes many things declarative that were historically procedural, potentially painful to debug, code. This eases distro maintenance and I suppose is one of the top reasons most distros adopted it. wrt the Unix philosophy, discussions about it related to systemd are often (always?) too abstract to be useful, I'd suggest talking about specific problematic points.