Should i switch from systemd to another init system, What are the advantages of using another init system?
I have seen so many times that systemd is insecure, bloated, etc. So i wonder ¿does it worth to switch to another init system?
You are viewing a single comment
It used to be that everything in Linux was a file, ideally a text file, so if you could find the right file you could access or change what you wanted. Systemd is a big program that manages a bunch of stuff and creates unique commands within its programs for doing so, which moves away from that principle and turns system management into what feels a bit more microsofty (like the registry editor program vs editing config files, etc) and a lot of people don't like that. But to its credit, it does solve a few problems with cobbling together a modern system that doesn't suck.
Actually it doesn't really move away that much from the "everything is a file" principle. For example a "service" is a file describing how to properly start a particular service and if you enable a service, then a symlink is created to your service file, ....
As a Windows app developer, I wish Windows service management, boot control, and logging were more like that of systemd. What we have is so much more janky and Sisyphean to work with.
Yes? The entire Systemd configuration is done with files. With a very well defined structure called units that you can use to configure, boot, service startup, networking, containers, mount stuff, open sockets.... that's exactly the point Systemd provides a cohesive configuration file format for a system.
Yeah but I've interacted with it a lot and most of my interaction is commands sent through one of their programs. Versus scripts like init.d whose contents I can easily inspect and modify. Init scripts aren't config files, they're directly executable code.
Yes and that's exactly the problem.