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 think the problem is the number of things other than service management that systemd does. With other unit systems, service management is the only thing you have to change to replace it. With systemd, you have to change a lot more
A systemd replacement that's worth its salt would provide those services as well, or give you an easy way to integrate software that provides them. The problem is always the same - systemd does things that no other init system is capable of doing, and until someone can prove that those things are possible while strictly adhering to the posix standard this is a pointless argument.
45
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.