8 ms·

Can you provide example of what makes it easier than alternatives?

by bsg75 4y ago

asdfkjhasdfhuh 4y ago
systemd is "easier" for people used to cisco/microsoft/etc. The huge list of services with not-for-human names so your job can look complicated and essential.
- happymellon 4y ago
  It may be easier for them, but as someone without Cisco experience, systemd was a lot easier for configuring service dependencies once I understood it. It's been 10 years now? I wouldn't go back, most of the suggested alternatives are so basic that troubleshooting becomes a chore. Almost all the hate is because they don't like Lennart. We should fork it, get someone else to head that with a different name to get them on board.
  - asdfkjhasdfhuh 4y ago
    i also accepted it. And made a point to forget the cisco experience. Yeah, the dependency is a fine feature, but before it was even *easier*... just put a number on the rc.d symlink. c'mon, if you think that is harder than editing a dozen files, remembering weirdly named camelCase attributes and then pointing to randomly named services, then i don't know what to say. But again, i also accepted it, for better or worse. Now, i don't care about lennart, but i hated systemd for most of the time because they pushed an incomplete crap over something that was working, just to get contributors. If redhat wanted their cisco/windows services management clone, they could have worked on it. Doing what they did (i call it to pull a gnome) was just shitty behaviour and they should always be remembered for such action.
- UK-AL 4y ago
  Eh? systemd unit files are tiny compared to the huge massive scripts that came before it. Often those scripts we're only understood by a few people as well. I think this why a lot of people really hate systemd. Suddenly a bunch of arcane knowledge used to maintain specific scripts got made redundant.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    I have a thousand gripes about systemd, but “it made my knowledge obsolete” doesn’t make that list. Also, I have only seen two or so massive scripts about services. Most of them were slight variations of a standard boilerplate code.
paulddraper 4y ago
Like...everything? Create a service that starts on boot: cat > /etc/systemd/example.service << EOF [Unit] After=network.target [Service] User=example ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/example [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target EOF systemctl enable --now example And the harder things get, the bigger the advantage. Like if you want to mount a disk, create a socket, and then afterward start unprivileged service...all very simple.

Can you provide example of what makes it easier than alternatives?

by bsg75 4y ago

Can you provide example of what makes it easier than alternatives?

systemd is "easier" for people used to cisco/microsoft/etc. The huge list of services with not-for-human names so your job can look complicated and essential.

happymellon 4y ago
It may be easier for them, but as someone without Cisco experience, systemd was a lot easier for configuring service dependencies once I understood it. It's been 10 years now? I wouldn't go back, most of the suggested alternatives are so basic that troubleshooting becomes a chore. Almost all the hate is because they don't like Lennart. We should fork it, get someone else to head that with a different name to get them on board.
- asdfkjhasdfhuh 4y ago
  i also accepted it. And made a point to forget the cisco experience. Yeah, the dependency is a fine feature, but before it was even *easier*... just put a number on the rc.d symlink. c'mon, if you think that is harder than editing a dozen files, remembering weirdly named camelCase attributes and then pointing to randomly named services, then i don't know what to say. But again, i also accepted it, for better or worse. Now, i don't care about lennart, but i hated systemd for most of the time because they pushed an incomplete crap over something that was working, just to get contributors. If redhat wanted their cisco/windows services management clone, they could have worked on it. Doing what they did (i call it to pull a gnome) was just shitty behaviour and they should always be remembered for such action.
UK-AL 4y ago
Eh? systemd unit files are tiny compared to the huge massive scripts that came before it. Often those scripts we're only understood by a few people as well. I think this why a lot of people really hate systemd. Suddenly a bunch of arcane knowledge used to maintain specific scripts got made redundant.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  I have a thousand gripes about systemd, but “it made my knowledge obsolete” doesn’t make that list. Also, I have only seen two or so massive scripts about services. Most of them were slight variations of a standard boilerplate code.

paulddraper 4y ago

Like...everything? Create a service that starts on boot: cat > /etc/systemd/example.service << EOF [Unit] After=network.target [Service] User=example ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/example [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target EOF systemctl enable --now example And the harder things get, the bigger the advantage. Like if you want to mount a disk, create a socket, and then afterward start unprivileged service...all very simple.