You're viewing a single thread.
At the level I care about, which is "I want this daemon to start when I boot up the computer", systemd is much better. I can write a ~5 line unit file that will do exactly that, and I'll be done.
With init, I needed to copy-paste a 50-line shell script that I don't really understand except that a lot of it seemed to be concerned with pid files. Honestly, I fail to see how that's better...
Yeah, that does sound better. What are the arguments for init?
The only arguments against I have seen so for is systemd does a lot more than just handing system startup (
systemd-resolvedis one such example) and files that was previously stored as text now require systemd's own tool to read (journalctl?).So not the actual startup function, just everything else.
Mmm I have a general dislike of systemd because it doesn't adhere to the "do one thing and do it well" approach of traditional Unix systems.
It's a big old opaque blob of software components that work nicely together but don't play well with others, basically.
Edit: but it solved a particular set of problems in serverspace and it's bled over to the consumer Linux side of things and generally I'm ok with it if it simplifies things for people. I just don't want a monoculture to spring up and take root across all of Linux as monocultures aren't great for innovation or security.
Based on the video someone posted, it's not very portable either.
I feel that little part of my brain that wants to add yet another standard itching. Easily starting something at boot is good, but I don't see why that has to come with loss of modularity.
Afaik they don't care about being portable to instead focus as much as possible on being fast and whatever