On 5 April 2017 at 12:27, Darac Marjal <mailingl...@darac.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 01:29:07AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote: > >> >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Tom Browder <tom.brow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> But I kind of understand why systemd, but I wish I could find a good >>> cookbook description of how to add or modify a new process. >>> >> >> +1 >> >> Indeed: >> The main thing I personally have a problem with in systemd that I did not >> have a problem with in sysvinit is that the documentation for how to do >> things “the systemd way” is hard to find and opaque once you do find it. >> In contrast, anyone who can read and write simple shell scripts has little >> need for documentation to do things “the sysvinit way”, though >> documentation is available if you want it. Any working sysvinit system has >> dozens of self-documenting examples right there in /etc/init.d/ . >> > > Corollary: This is why systemd is needed. So many bad habits have been > "copied" from other scripts. How many sysv scripts' reload functions > consist of "$0 stop; sleep 5; $0 start"? What's that sleep for? A proper > init script should not really be returning from "stop" unless the > daemon has stopped. But many daemons are writted such that it's > difficult to tell - meaning that if you do "$0 stop; $0 start", it's not > reliable. > > Systemd deliberately restricts what can be done in order to encourage > better-written init-scripts resulting in a more reliable, more > performant system. > So systemd was designed to make spamming the boot up process with an array of Heath Robinson style non standard scripts difficult in practice..... Thus systemd is about spam reduction ie moving from Spam, egg, Spam, Spam, bacon and Spam to Kimchi Fried Rice and low entropy self assembling alphabet spam. I feel suitably edified by this discussion. Regards MF > > At least, that's the theory. > > > >> Pointers to any tutorials as mentioned above by Tom, will be greatly >> appreciated!!! >> >> Enjoy >> Rick >> > > -- > For more information, please reread. > >
