4 ms·
I used Debian for a year before moving to Ubuntu and eventually Arch. I've tried all 3 flavors of init, and I vastly prefer systemd : 1. It is noticeably faste
by zanny 13y ago
I used Debian for a year before moving to Ubuntu and eventually Arch. I've tried all 3 flavors of init, and I vastly prefer systemd :
1. It is noticeably faster.
2. It is braindead easy and intuitive to write service files, and you can write service files or a surrogate for almost any system function from hot swap behavior to load balancing.
3. The entire systemd execution model is fs based, and you have a large library of services to run at your discretion.
4. powerctl is supremely more robust in its usability than pm-utils and shell scripts around suspend / shutdown states.
Only thing that really bugs me is the binary log. I want to pipe it and manipulate it and read it outside a terminal in say, kate, but I have to install syslog on top to do that.
- peterwwillis 13y agoOkay, well to play devil's advocate: 1. Legacy init systems were never tuned for performance. Just look at 'grep sleep -r /etc/init* /etc/rc*' as an example. 2. Easier is nice, but you could write scripts for all those system things using hotplug, udev, and a variety of other things (remember devfs?) I never bothered to learn because they just worked. 3. I'm not sure what you mean here; what execution model is not fs-based in some way? If you mean scripts would execute other scripts based on a filesystem hirearchy, yes, all the old systems did that too. 4. That's nice, but it's kind of irrelevant to how your system initialization/service management works. Different purposes and all. And yeah, binary logs are dumb without a tool to manage them, but relying on syslog is smart. It's an industry standard. It's the only industry standard for collecting and managing logs from every kind of device, other than maybe snmp (yuck).