I am not the author.
I think if systemd were documented in a more consumable format (the man pages need better organization IMO) more people would see how powerful it is. Mounting directories with BindPath, and BindPathRO, Limiting systemcalls, socket activation and cgroup integration, and nspawn containers are features I can’t live without.
I feel like a lot of people that get attached to the “It tries to do everything and it’s against the unix philosophy” argument might change their minds when they see the tradeoffs. It has its problems for sure, but you get a lot out of it.
These days I don’t even use docker containers for running services. I just put it in a systemd service and lock it down as tightly as I can.
I’m pretty sure the Arch Wiki has a substantial documentation regarding systemd
It is pretty well documented. Just look it up online and you will find plenty of articles
You’ll find blog spam and ai slop if you look it up online. Systemd’s website/man pages should be the resource that brings me up to speed.
I had to read about run0 and other upcoming systemd features from Lennart’s Mastodon which I’m not a fan of either. These kinds of things should be on the systemd website itself.
that’s a great example of bad docs.
How so? What are you trying to do?
read up to date current docs and know they are for the current working state of the system, potentially when i don’t have a net connection because i’m troubleshooting PID 0/1
It’s powerfulness IS the problem. Some parts of systemd are great. Some are meh! Some really suck. But because it’s monolithic, you can’t take the good bits and replace the bad. You have to take it all or nothing.
That’s the problem. Its architecture is offensively bad.
That’s just completely wrong. Just try e.g. replacing the journald backend with the old text based syslog, and not only will you discover that is possible (which directly contradicts what you just said), it’s also easy!
