On 19/12/2016 16:52, Marc Joliet wrote: ...
> I'm not convinced that you actually understand systemd particularly well. It > seems to me that if you want to develop an informed opinion about it, you > should: > > a) Read the official documentation (don't just rely on what others say; even > when well-intentioned, people can say stupid things). > > b) Try to set up and/or run a systemd-based system, and seriously try to grok > it. Only then will you be able to compare it to other init systems properly. ... I feel the same way. systemd is declarative and simple variables in a unit define what you want. This makes sense - the list of what management functions a service supports is a very short list - start/stop/restart/status. Apart from configtest (a la Apache) what else is there really? systemd could be the poster child for the declarative style and knock ansible off it's perch where it currently reigns :-) Looking at SysVInit, it's only real grace is that it's been around for 30+ years. But it defers all decisions to the daemon author/packager; after a short while the ecosystem is so cluttered with weird scripts, that packagers resort to bolting a declarative layer on top of init scripts, as in the boilerplate you mentioned. The truth is, as designs go, sysvinit is a /terrible/ design. It only lasted 30 years because it forces all the tricky bits to be someone else's problem -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
