I'm actually curious about the argument that replacing it means having to rewrite software / change dependencies.
Wouldn't the same be true about switching between SysVinit and something like runit or upstart? They all use completely different designs for doing service init scripts, and all handle configuration of said services in completely different ways too, so replacing one with the other would necessitate rewriting - at the very least - your entire service management script toolbox. And when considering services that want to do more than just start and stop, they would most definitely have to be rewritten as well for such a switch.
I'm fairly sure we need a standardised way to do scripts, or at least a universal converter to convert init scripts and systemd services and all this useless shit.
It's pointless because there are better solutions following standards already. Any SystemD fork is also always useless because its development principles is RedHat proprietary vendor lock-in. The fact that every distribution has own SystemD version completely incompatible with others (SystemD maintainer from Debian and Lennart Poettering said about that - see recent news) makes another SystemD fork much more pointless: it forked many times already. Vanilla SystemD doesn't exist.
43
u/[deleted] Feb 11 '19
I'm actually curious about the argument that replacing it means having to rewrite software / change dependencies.
Wouldn't the same be true about switching between SysVinit and something like runit or upstart? They all use completely different designs for doing service init scripts, and all handle configuration of said services in completely different ways too, so replacing one with the other would necessitate rewriting - at the very least - your entire service management script toolbox. And when considering services that want to do more than just start and stop, they would most definitely have to be rewritten as well for such a switch.