Avoiding Complexity with Systemd
I&#x27;m glad to see more people sway to systemd. Systemd is 10 years in the making and it was met with skepticism right from the first day. Some of that is now slowly changing with systemd being accepted in more and more distributions. Service and runlevel management wasn&#x27;t any better in the sysv era, nor were any of the multitude of custom start and boot scripts.<p>I remember when it took multiple days testing the configuration on different distributions, editions and versions to just get a single daemon process to start without failure. Then do the whole thing over again because the Debian based distros did not use the RedHat startup tools, different (or no) runlevel configurations, different service binders, different NTP daemon, different terminal deamon, etc.. And of course the French customers wanted the service to work with Mandriva, the German customers want SUSE support with extended security options like dropping permissions after boot.<p>Just like the article mentions you can define a portable service model with security and failure handling built in. There wasn&#x27;t even anything that came close back in the day. Systemd may not have been built with the Unix philosophy in mind, but at some point that becomes a secondary concern.<p>Systemd unifies all systemd resources in units which work anywhere, its expandable and extendable, user friendly, allows for remote monitoring etc.