Andreas Radke <andy...@archlinux.org> on Fri, 2022/12/16 22:46: > The older Arch developers may remember vaguely how Arch has introduced > [1] and migrated to systemd [2] becoming the new and only supported init > system. [...]
I remember these days, though I was a regular user back then. :)
The biggest argument again systemd is its complexity. Some people do prefer
simple init systems with init scripts.
Let's recap: Sure, systemd is complex, but it is well maintained (IMHO).
Generally it works well. The benefit is that systemd units can be written
quite easily, at least basic ones. Issues are easy to fix, things just work.
In contrast to that the complexity comes from the init scripts with the other
init systems. For each of them, again and again. Syntax errors, race
conditions, what ever.
And please note that systemd provides a lot of security features (limiting
privileges, presenting read-only filesystems, ...) for its services. It's
nearly impossible to implement this with init scripts, so system security
would drop a lot.
Just adding another init system to the repositories is the easy part.
Properly supporting it is anything between hard and impossible.
I think this would result in a huge amount of issue regarding broken or
missing init scripts, for all of us. (Well, at least anybody maintaining a
daemon of any kind.) I am not convinced this is a good idea. More the
opposite.
--
main(a){char*c=/* Schoene Gruesse */"B?IJj;MEH"
"CX:;",b;for(a/* Best regards my address: */=0;b=c[a++];)
putchar(b-1/(/* Chris cc -ox -xc - && ./x */b/42*2-3)*42);}
pgpgxQboT7KGq.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
