[AlexMax]

> Has anyone had positive experiences with systemd?

I was a relatively early adopter to CentOS 7, and I have yet to run into an issue that I could pin on systemd across any of the Linux systems I use or maintain. Then again, my requirements tend to be pretty "normal" and not terribly taxing - at most I crank out a couple of server-specific service and timer files and get on with my life.

I totally understand where some of the critics of systemd are coming from. No matter how you slice it, more lines of code is invariably going to result in more bugs. And the development team does seem a bit myopic at times - though nothing deserving the death threats they get.

However, there were some clear disadvantages to the old-school sysv init, and I thought that it was important that Linux settle on a new standard init system and do it without yet another instance of fragmentation happening, like with rpm vs deb or Flatpak vs Snap or countless other examples. Systemd happened to be it, but honestly I didn't even care what the init system was as long as something finally "won" and didn't introduce yet another schism. In fact, I highly suspect that if something else had won people would have doubtless found an axe to grind with that one too.

[nailer]

> No matter how you slice it, more lines of code is invariably going to result in more bugs.

Is systemd + its services and timer files, bigger than sysvinit, cron, atd, pm2/forever, previous device managers, all the various bash scripts, and everything else it replaces?

I don't know either way. I'm just not completely sure Systemd is bigger.

[rjeli]

But when the bash scripts and pipes break, it’s easier to isolate the broken component vs grepping through the systemd monorepo.

[nailer]

Sure. But bash scripts and pipes break way, way more often then a .service file does.