this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
517 points (97.4% liked)

linuxmemes

20880 readers
5 users here now

I use Arch btw

Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
517
How to pickup girls 101 (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm fine with systemd, but I really do get the feeling that it exists more because of Red Hat's NIH syndrome than anything that was actually bad about upstart.

[โ€“] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Nah, upstart actually sucked. I used it in an embedded project and getting things to start consistently was a nightmare. We had to put all kinds of sleeps in because there was no way to tell when something actually started, only when it was told to start (i.e. start on started x would start both at essentially the same time).

With systemd, that all went away. It magics away sockets and whatnot so things just work properly. Also, our startup time went way down because things could start just a bit earlier, and the config files were more intuitive.

Upstart was a poor solution in search of a problem, and items sysvinit was honestly better imo because sysvinit didn't hide little gotchas all over the place. Systemd is an over engineered solution to a real problem, but it works really well. Oh, and socket activation is magical.

That said, I still prefer the FreeBSD way, which is just a slightly fancy sysvinit. It works well, though it won't win any awards for fanciness. Maybe launchd, if it ever comes to FreeBSD (maybe it has? I've been OOTL since 12), will be cool, IDK.