Why do we use systemd

[lee]

Adrian Sevcenco <Adrian.Sevcenco at cern.ch> writes:

> These are completely unrelated terms. in services start language
> "enabled" means "start at boot" and disabled "do not start at boot" ..
> and that's all ..

If you want to see it this way, then systemd misunderstands things so
that "disabled" means to start something eventually, which is bs.
Without systemd, and for everyone and everything else, disabled means
disabled, like "cannot be started".

> systemd added the automatically dependency start : if the foo service is
> a dependence of bar service, at bar start also foo will start even if it
> is not enabled (which is good!) (and from my point of view easier for
> the admins and users alike)

Why would it be easier for anyone to express dependencies than it is to
make it so that things start in a particular order?

When bar depends on foo such that it doesn't work without foo, it's up
to the package management to know this dependency and to install foo
when I install bar.  This is not a job for the init system.

Starting something that is not enabled, i. e. disabled, is a bug, and
there's nothing good about it.  There's also nothing good about starting
something that isn't needed or wanted (which is why it is disabled) just
because something else which is needed or wanted is started.

It /can/ be a good thing when it's possible to start something which is
not started during booting.  That it can be started and under what
conditions exactly it will be started has to be entirely clear, and
there needs to be an option to ask root whether it should be started or
not.  Systemd doesn't have this clarity, and it doesn't ask, and there's
nothing good about that.

> only when you want to _forbid_ the start of an service you will "mask"
> it:

No, I would disable it.


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)