Comment by dietr1ch
2 days ago
Yeah, init scripts are simple, but things get tricky outside of the happy path. Think of service upgrades/restarts. Once you care about dependencies, then you are back to a graph like systemd's.
2 days ago
Yeah, init scripts are simple, but things get tricky outside of the happy path. Think of service upgrades/restarts. Once you care about dependencies, then you are back to a graph like systemd's.
If ever handled thousands of servers running Linux with sysvinit, you get quite accustomed to it… and the tricky bits aren’t that tricky.
talking "outside happy path" in defense of systemd is wild. because that's it's Achilles heel.
systemd is awfully documented (volume is not quality), things are still changing and haven't even caught up in functionality with any init hack.
the only saving grace of systemd is that it almost makes it easier to use namespace and other sandbox (but only because those are newer and init systems also didn't have their solutions up yet)
systemd only purpose is to mimic windows administration in linux. sorry of anyone who fails to see this
How are hacky init scripts written in shellscript well documented? Can you point me to this documentation?
When are the init systems going to implement the basic security measures systemd has?
Which security measures are init systems missing? Are you saying all other init systems are badly documented?
1 reply →