[Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd

[adler at stephenadler.com (Stephen Adler)]

I just finished upgrading to rhel 7 which is based on systemd and it was 
the first time
I really paid attention to it. (With my fedora installs, I've basically 
done the most minimal
configuration and having to work with systemd was done only on as 
totally need basis.)

At first it seems dumb and complicated, but once you get into the 
details of it, it's actually
quite good, in my opinion. It makes it possible to boot your system much 
faster by bringing up
services in parallel. In the old SysVinit way, all those shell scripts 
were rather complicated and obtuse
and if you wanted to figure out what was happening, you'd need to dig 
through them carefully.
The contents of the .service file seems to be a bit more straight 
forward to me...

My two cents...

On 09/10/2014 10:14 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
> http://www.infoworld.com/print/248950
>
>    Mike Gancarz sums up the Unix philosophy: 1. Small is beautiful. 2.
>    Make each program do one thing well. ... We have built the Internet
>    and all modern Internet services on those principles. Systemd's design
>    and implementation violates nearly all of them.
>
>    Should it be a surprise that so many long-term Unix and Linux
>    developers, architects, and administrators recoil at the thought of
>    something like systemd? It might seem that the design of systemd
>    purposefully dispensed with the wisdom of 45 years of Unix development
>    and struck out in a different direction just to spite the old guard.
> [...]
>
>
> Opinions?
>
>   -Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>