News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Linux distros without systemd by vbezhenar on Monday May 20, 2019 @12:31PM (#19962129)
sysvinit is easier to understand for me. It's just a bunch of shell scripts after all. So from the point of simplicity sysvinit wins for me and I never had much problems with it (while I had some problems with systemd). On the other hand, I recently had to write unit file for tomcat and it was extremely easy, systemd had all necessary options. Writing shell script was not that hard, of course, but it was some work.
Re:Linux distros without systemd by sprash on Monday May 20, 2019 @12:42PM (#19962240)
One reason even big ol sysvinit is superior to systemd is that shell scripts are transitive knowledge. You can do almost everything with shell scripts. Learning some obscure (albeit very simple) systemd unit file format won't help you anywhere else besides systemd.
Re:Linux distros without systemd by AsyncAwait on Monday May 20, 2019 @04:19PM (#19964726)
> One reason even big ol sysvinit is superior to systemd is that shell scripts are transitive knowledge.

In theory. In practice systemd's actually much more transitive since many distros have adopted it and systemd services tend to work cross-distro, so once you learn systemd you can somewhat confidently manage Fedora, RHEL, Ubuntu, Arch, SuSE, Nix etc.

sysvinit shell scripts often differed in subtle ways between distros and the particular distro implementation was rarely transportable without quite a bit of work.

> You can do almost everything with shell scripts.

This cuts both ways. I'd argue the problem with sysvinit was precisely the fact that you can do almost everything with shell scripts, since now you're executing a script as root that can do almost anything, depends heavily on the bash abilities of the author to not introduce subtle bugs, or break easily, (which varied heavily from script to script and distro to distro), and to not be a security nightmare.