Le 08.11.2013 12:12, Marko Randjelovic a écrit :
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:06:25 +0100 berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:> Systemd makes> system startup more complicated and you need to know not only shell> scripts but also systemd syntax.I'm interested. Do you have a document explaining that you need to use shell scripts with systemd? systemd supports shell scripts, but it's notbecause it have to, it is because it's authors wants and easy integration of existing stuff, AFAIK.I didn't write it quite well. I meant about non-standard configuration.-- http://mr.flossdaily.org
So your argument is that things are more complex when they are not standard than when they are standard with systemd, while the complexity is the same ( modulo the script's complexity itself ) with sysvinit? My opinion on that point is that it's a good thing, because systemd's standard situations are far simpler to configure than sysvinit, while the non-standard ones are as complex as the sysvinit's ones (and so as sysvinit standards ones, too, still modulo the script complexity itself).
This sounds fair enough for me.Note that I actually do not intend to use systemd, but it is only because there are people doing things for me with sysvinit, and that systemd does too many things according to my tastes (since I want the lightest system possible, without having to sacrifice any feature. This works quite well, but could be better if dbus and especially gstreamer were not required by so many applications, so I won't add a systemd in it if I can delay... ).
If systemd had not as many features, I would be using it from months.