Linked by jessesmith on Wed 5th Nov 2014 10:39 UTC
Linux Over the past year I've been reading a lot of opinions on the new init technology, systemd. Some people think systemd is wonderful, the bee's knees. Others claim that systemd is broken by design. Some see systemd as a unifying force, a way to unite the majority of the Linux distributions. Others see systemd as a growing blob that is slowly becoming an overly large portion of the operating system. One thing that has surprised me a little is just how much people care about systemd, whether their opinion of the technology is good or bad. People in favour faithfully (and sometimes falsely) make wonderful claims about what systemd is and what it can supposedly do. Opponents claim systemd will divide the Linux community and drive many technical users to other operating systems. There is a lot of hype and surprisingly few people presenting facts.
Thread beginning with comment 599190
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

That is one of those things i keep seeing pop up, that the project dev is the person to maintain the boot scripts.


The program being launched is a binary with a set of command line switches, no? There is no secret sauce that the scripts need to obfuscate are there?

Reply Parent Score: 2

woegjiub Member since:

You still need *someone* to write the scripts.
If not the project lead, then the packagers for each distro.

Given that the project author is the most familiar with the software, it's been common to see such scripts written by them, so as to prevent each distro's packager for that software from having to do as much investigation.

The point is, though, that since all you really want is to pass a binary name with a few arguments, having a dedicated script written to control each package is madness, and leads to potential breakage.

Reply Parent Score: 3