“a popular init system”? It’s the main init system now. Look at it. Systemd is the captain now.
You’ll have to learn it if you use any mainstream distro. Like at work. It is inevitable.
Yes, that’s what ‘popular’ becomes.
Note that it’s often labeled as ‘popular’ and not ‘good’.
I’m sick of redhat’s internal junk. It’s just to sell courses anyway.
It makes my work so much easier than it could’ve.
Imagine having to tweak sysvinit script at work.
Yeah, nope I’ll pass. Unit files for me please thank you.
Popular?
Yes, popular. Many distros use it and, believe it or not, most people don’t care it’s there. It works.
The left and right one should be swapped.
lol 🤣
SOYSTEMD LOL 😂😂😂 (i use systemd)
I knew a Arch guy who called it Sys-dumb-d. He refused to run systemd.
I could mostly care less. It’s…fine. I miss upstart and it’s simplicity. Kind of wish it had been actually developed to maturity, but here we are with an init system that also wants to do DNS.
If it was only an init system I’d be ok with it. But it isn’t…
You need to use its init system (systemd), its logging system (systemd-journald, and can be forwarded to old school syslog), and some dbus implementation.
If that’s an unreasonable requirement for your usecase, check out OpenRC
then what would you define it as?
It’s a system daemon that manages way more than an init system, hence the name “systemd”.
It’s never been popular by anybody except RedHat, that’s how they sell courses end certifications.
Still haven’t found a way to start something after networking has finished when it takes a bit to set everything up. (and no, not going to limit vlans, tunnels,…)
It’s a technical ‘solution’ for a marketing problem.
Does
After=not fit your use case? I was under the impression it does what you’re looking for.Wouldn’t you just set “networking” as a dependency on the unit of whatever you need started after?
systemctl start serviceI love how fucking lennaert subtly changed that. Who cares that it complicates classic tools.
