On 7-6-14 10:39:11 lee wrote:
"Garry T. Williams" gtwilliams@gmail.com writes:
The analogy is placing a script in /etc/init.d and then linking its name in the /etc/rc5.d directory.
I find this much simpler than the sysvinit schemes.
You have taken well over 100 lines to give a description about how to get a daemon started with systemd, not to mention the hours you must have spent reading all the documentation to figure out how to do what you wanted.
Of course, my message was an attempt to explain what a Unit is to Patrick. The bulk of my reply was not describing how to get a daemon started with systemd.
As to the hours of reading, well, yes. systemd was new when I first encountered it. How else could I learn how it works without actually reading the documentation?
It took you only 2 lines to describe how to do the same thing with sysvinit.
Yes.
But have you looked at the sysvinit script to compare it to the Service unit that accomplishes the same thing? Here's an example:
http://0pointer.de/public/abrtd
The point is that there is lots of boilerplate in every sysvinit script to do the simplest task. The systemd Service unit corresponding to the abrt init script is way simpler. And it can accomplish stuff the bare script cannot, like automatic restart upon failure.
This might help in comparing the two:
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-3.html
I don't understand how you can find systemd "much simpler" than sysvinit. Where and how is it simpler than sysvinit? It takes only about 2% of the effort, if that much, to start a daemon with sysvinit than it takes to do the same with systemd.
For systemd, you even have to learn a whole new "programming language" to create configuration files which is useless anywhere else. Efficiency is negative here.
Reading the documentation, I know that the unit files do not contain *any* "programming language". They are declarative. That was very intensional in systemd's design. Indeed, there have been many discussions and patches submitted to add that very thing to the unit files on the systemd development mailing list. These have been uniformly rejected because of this basic design.
Yes, you do have to read and understand the documentation to successfully use systemd. I'll leave it to others to comment on the usefulness of a Unit file outside of Fedora.