Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective

Re:Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retr... by dralley on Monday May 04, 2020 @01:48AM (#23064938)

One of the reasons distributions appreciate systemd because systemd unit files are easy to write and can easily be written and maintained upstream and used with very few if any modifications downstream.

Your average HN user doesn't see or particularly care that it makes things easier for distro maintainers, so it's much easier to push the corporate conspiracy angle than to accept that a lot of the hand-wringing takes huge amounts not-very-fun volunteer labor for granted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retr... by rleigh on Monday May 04, 2020 @02:33AM (#23065160)

This is one thing which is often claimed, but to my mind is poorly justified.

As a (Debian) package maintainer for over a decade, this used to be a non-issue. They were write and forget. The average package was just some simple boilerplate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retr... by esarbe on Monday May 04, 2020 @11:18AM (#23069042)

I love not having to maintain half a dozen init scripts for three distributions but just one unit file for a well defined service manager.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retr... by bandrami on Tuesday May 05, 2020 @11:37AM (#23081178)

As a Slackware and OpenBSD user I've really never understood this complaint. The init scripts they ship with are neither difficult to understand nor hard to read, and new ones are very easy to write.

Maybe the LSB stuff was awful; I never used it, and for that matter I can't think of a reason I would want to. It's the old FreeDesktop.org issue: it's a probably-interesting solution to a problem I just don't have.

[ Parent | on HN ]