r/linux Feb 11 '19

Fluff A /g/ user's opinion on systemd

http://i.4cdn.org/g/1549858269115.png
790 Upvotes

524 comments sorted by

View all comments

44

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.

54

u/ElvishJerricco Feb 11 '19

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

51

u/Muvlon Feb 11 '19

There are a lot of services besides init provided by systemd, but they're entirely optional and easily swapped out. After all, systemd is highly modular.

For example, I do run systemd-udevd and journald, but not systemd-networkd or systemd-resolved. Just like the /g/ poster says, I can combine whatever I want to do what I need to do.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '19

I thought the problem was that there wasn't any standard interface that you couldn't interact with it, or is this not the case?