• iopq@lemmy.world
    393·
    13 days ago

    I still don’t know what people use to create services other than systemd

    If you’re writing bash scripts you’re basically replicating a lot of the functionality of systemd but with larger foot guns

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      162·
      12 days ago

      The system V init approach did the job fine for a couple of decades—even if the actual service definitions were a glorified shell switch statement as you insinuate.

      Canonical did their upstart thing for a couple of years that wasn’t too bad to use, personally I’m glad they ended up switching to systemd though.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
        32·
        12 days ago

        All of them are worse in my experience. In a embedded context I use busybox init and if I need something more I used systemd. Systemd actually has a fairly small footprint. A few years ago I ran it on a system with 32mb of ram.

    • unhrpetby@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      12 days ago

      We can use dinit, s6, runit, and openrc.

      There are more, but these are all top contenders.

      I switched to dinit recently, it uses declarative service management (like systemd unit files). Very clean, fast, lightweight, and portable.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      510·
      12 days ago

      If you’re writing bash scripts you’re basically replicating a lot of the functionality of systemd

      You have that backwards

      If you’re writing Systemd profile profile profiles you’re replicating shell scripts but with a lot of spongey unknown “come on, pumpkin” cancer code that you’re only sure will do what you think because you don’t know what suddenly capriciously changed in enterfuckingprize code and boy is your remote server screwed. Fuck me if I need to actually rely on something starting.

      No one said sysV is awesome. It’s built to best practice and it does what it does really well, but that’s not a lot. But it does it well. Oh, the days Systemd has ruined trying to work half as well as ; well fuck, every alternative.

      The days Systemd doesn’t ruin, it’s the other cancer, network manager and ‘consistent’ naming. And devices that don’t come up. And devices that don’t actually assign a fucking static goddamned address. #youHadOneJob

      Spot the parts of enterprise Linux that runs like shit and barely does the same thing twice on two identical adjacent boxes, and I’ll show you some whiz kid who shat out some cancer and went to go work at Microsoft.

      So. Anyway, because the reliable stuff came before Systemd’s change-for-lulz setup, you had them in the wrong order unless you have a time machine.

      • a Kendrick fan@lemmy.ml
        21·
        12 days ago

        Very much this, why is systemd entangling itself in every part of the linux kernel, I ripped that mfer network-manager and installed iwd

        I’m on guix-sd and don’t have to suffer systemd

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.eeEnglish
    112·
    13 days ago

    Was gonna ask what’s wrong with Systemd but decided to look it up and I now see why, at least from what I was reading.

    • fl42v@lemmy.ml
      133·
      12 days ago

      I mean, if you want an init (e.g. embedded linux), sysd may not be way you want. On desktops, tho, you ultimately end up hacking together more or less the same functionality with sticks’n’shit. And yes, sysd timers are more readable than crontab, sue me.

      Edit: the point is, sysd is not (only) an init.

  • udon@lemmy.world
    7·
    12 days ago

    Ah, thanks for the reminder! As a happy systemd user I sometimes forget how stubbornly resentful some people in the Linux community are that they still try to keep this up as a topic. Then again, maybe this is just a troll?