Re: I've forgotten...
That's also its weakness because it makes them delicate, allowing them to fail in obscure ways that results in a cascade where the reported point of failure isn't really the point where it started to go wrong
That's just nonsense. Explicit scripting is inspectable; the point of failure is trivially found.
Plus SysV doesn't use dependency triggering but delays.
Again, not true; the only time a script will delay is if there is good reason to do so - which a systemd initialisation will also need to do. The only difference in terms of how te two ytems are supposed to work is that systemd is asynchronous whereas SysV is synchronous. That makes SysV more robust and more easily debugged, and it makes systemd faster.
And if that had been the extent of what systemd had done, there wouldn't be this recurring argument. But it isn't; most of us couldn't really care whether the start system is sync or async, what we care about is that far too much code is getting subsumed into systemd. That smacks of very poor design.
Vic.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
