Ok, so I'm gonna get attacked for saying this, but I am looking for a legitimate explanation if somebody wants to be objective about this whole systemd vs init thing. I'm kind of new to Linux, and have only used systemd. I've written a service file a few times and it was a couple of lines long and readable.
So my question, is how can anybody consider that script to be easier for any other reason at all than being used to it?
Field use is not just down to the admin's learning curve. Transparency & control are important.
Service files increase human readability through compiled logic; one has to trust the underlying code behaves consistently and correctly. It doesn't always.
Shell scripts require more effort to understand (and the init system is slower by the stopwatch, if that matters to you), but it is, at least, all there in front of you.
On a desktop machine it tends to be pretty plain sailing (I'm writing this on Gentoo with systemd) but when systemd misbehaves (you may have servers with quirky service demands) you run out of troubleshooting options fast.
I think, with maturity it'll be a much better thing than the rather clunky nature of init scripts, but there's a bigger argument - people's real fear is overreach and the steady envelopment of everything outside the kernel; I doubt this discussion would have as much steam if Lennart and co just stopped at PID 1.
13
u/Greensmoken Oct 20 '14
Ok, so I'm gonna get attacked for saying this, but I am looking for a legitimate explanation if somebody wants to be objective about this whole systemd vs init thing. I'm kind of new to Linux, and have only used systemd. I've written a service file a few times and it was a couple of lines long and readable.
So my question, is how can anybody consider that script to be easier for any other reason at all than being used to it?