On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 01:12:12PM +0200, Hadrien LACOUR wrote: > But when you had to modify or write unit files, it wasn't fun.
Dead easy. And you can even add to the definition rather than rewriting. > Even if most of the vocabulary is simple, the number of keywords is > simply too high; So is the number of things in your $PATH… anyhow, man systemd.directives, be momentarily dumbfounded by the number of them, then shut up and forward slash. > while a shell script can be understood by anybody. Bullshit. How often have I had to check people's lockfile code, or manual isolation? How often have I had to manually kill things all over the place because somebody's shitty daemon spawned a subprocess that daemonized itself or because the shitty pidfile wasn't updated (not *only* solved by systemd, thank goodness)? And don't get me started on non-robust shell scripting that I've sometime had to read. I'm tired of that nonsense. Having policy built on top of mechanism is a Good Thing™, though your attempt may look like regurgitated dog's breakfast. Having mechanism alone is not a good thing, and except for trivial systems, is such a clear sign of immature design. If you're going to make an argument against systemd, please make a stronger one. Repeated noise doesn't help The Cause™, as it seems to be around these parts.
