[arch-general] Systemd : Analysis of reactions of Users

Tom Gundersen teg at jklm.no
Thu Jul 26 07:23:44 EDT 2012

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 16:48 +0800, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
>> those are bash scripts
> Exactly, but what is better when we need to use irrational cryptic text
> files to set up or Linux, instead of easy to understand bash scrips?

I don't understand how you can claim the systemd syntax to be cryptic.
Sure, if you never saw it before you need to look up the meaning in
the manpage to be certain you got it right. This is not so different
from someone never seeing a bash script before, even if the syntax
looks intuitive, there are lots of subtleties that you better look up.
Even worse, lots of the idioms used in bash scripts are not documented
in bash's monster manpage, or are at least difficult to find.

The benefit of the systemd syntax is that it is much more restricted,
so every possible usage is well documented. Of course, you can then
complain that it might not be powerful enough (as it is not a
programing language), however for these cases, we can simply fall back
to using a bash script like in the old days. Note: this is almost
never necessary.


More information about the arch-general mailing list