3 ms·

I never found systemd difficult, but I do find prior solutions to be simpler. An init script is easy, and the order is also easy. If people are accustomed to UN

by BirAdam 2mo ago

I never found systemd difficult, but I do find prior solutions to be simpler. An init script is easy, and the order is also easy. If people are accustomed to UNIX systems, the sysvinit is better. For people who never experienced those systems, systemd is their friend. No need to use UNIX tools when Systemd ships with batteries included.

dietr1ch 2mo ago
Yeah, init scripts are simple, but things get tricky outside of the happy path. Think of service upgrades/restarts. Once you care about dependencies, then you are back to a graph like systemd's.
- iririririr 2mo ago
  talking "outside happy path" in defense of systemd is wild. because that's it's Achilles heel. systemd is awfully documented (volume is not quality), things are still changing and haven't even caught up in functionality with any init hack. the only saving grace of systemd is that it almost makes it easier to use namespace and other sandbox (but only because those are newer and init systems also didn't have their solutions up yet) systemd only purpose is to mimic windows administration in linux. sorry of anyone who fails to see this
  - jamespo 2mo ago
    How are hacky init scripts written in shellscript well documented? Can you point me to this documentation? When are the init systems going to implement the basic security measures systemd has?
    - graemep 2mo ago
      Which security measures are init systems missing? Are you saying all other init systems are badly documented?
      - jamespo 2mo ago
        take your pick: https://github.com/alegrey91/systemd-service-hardening https://github.com/alegrey91/systemd-service-hardening - and this was 6 years ago and barely scratches the surface
- BirAdam 2mo ago
  If ever handled thousands of servers running Linux with sysvinit, you get quite accustomed to it… and the tricky bits aren’t that tricky.
otabdeveloper4 2mo ago
> An init script is easy Oh boy. Lmao.

by BirAdam 2mo ago

dietr1ch 2mo ago

Yeah, init scripts are simple, but things get tricky outside of the happy path. Think of service upgrades/restarts. Once you care about dependencies, then you are back to a graph like systemd's.

iririririr 2mo ago
talking "outside happy path" in defense of systemd is wild. because that's it's Achilles heel. systemd is awfully documented (volume is not quality), things are still changing and haven't even caught up in functionality with any init hack. the only saving grace of systemd is that it almost makes it easier to use namespace and other sandbox (but only because those are newer and init systems also didn't have their solutions up yet) systemd only purpose is to mimic windows administration in linux. sorry of anyone who fails to see this
- jamespo 2mo ago
  How are hacky init scripts written in shellscript well documented? Can you point me to this documentation? When are the init systems going to implement the basic security measures systemd has?
  - graemep 2mo ago
    Which security measures are init systems missing? Are you saying all other init systems are badly documented?
    - jamespo 2mo ago
      take your pick: https://github.com/alegrey91/systemd-service-hardening https://github.com/alegrey91/systemd-service-hardening - and this was 6 years ago and barely scratches the surface
BirAdam 2mo ago
If ever handled thousands of servers running Linux with sysvinit, you get quite accustomed to it… and the tricky bits aren’t that tricky.

otabdeveloper4 2mo ago

> An init script is easy Oh boy. Lmao.