[gbromios]

>I get the impression that OP seems to just be abandoning systemd to build another... systemd. So it seems like not-invented-here syndrome.

well, he does say:

>There may be a bit of NIH syndrome leading to this decision; that’s ok, I can live with that;

>I don't really know about any of the drama surrounding systemd

I have only been a passive observer of said drama, it boils down to A) init was a stable, widely used, and well understood system that didn't need an update B) systemd takes on far too much responsibility, contrary to the unix philosophy.

personally, I have experienced only minor annoyance when having to re-learn familiar commands, though there seems to be a init compatibility layer that has made it pretty transparent to me. It'd probably have been more annoying if I were still an admin.

[lmz]

> init was a stable, widely used, and well understood system that didn't need an update

If it didn't need an update why did various parties try and replace it e.g. OSX launchd, Solaris SMF, Ubuntu Upstart?

[gbromios]

I have no idea. Like I said, I was only a casual observer of the rally against systemd. I get the feeling that the opposition was more about ethos than any irrefutable technical argument.

[briffle]

Init also took a VERY long time to start, and had very, very rudimentary concepts of dependencies.

[petre]

Launchd is actually quite a hurdle to use. XML service files, inconsistent syntax for launchctl commands etc.

Apple probably designed it so .plist files would be editable with some GUI tool.