@eureka: I just find it overly complex for, in the end, not much gain.
The dependency system is nice, but then so is the one from OpenRC, and at least the syntax actually makes sense there, without the 'oh, yeah, you *thought* it meant that? Well, guess what: it might not, not in every case. >_<"' effect, and it's still full shell, so you don't lose anything, and end up having to resort to weird hacks when your scripts need to do more stuff than simply launch a daemon.
(Most notably, I found doing something at other events than 'start' to be completely unintuitive).
The signals are nice (and something that's probably needed for a parallelized system anyway), even if they can induce a fair bit of complexity to the task at hand.
Sure, it boots faster, but, then, we're on a Kindle, a device no-one should ever reboot unless after an update, so, the bootspeed point is kinda moot.
At least the systemd guys took the idea to its full extent, whereas upstart feels a bit clunky to me, like: we need a faster/parallell init system, but we don't want to do a complete clean break with SysV, so, err, let's pile on a mountain of kludges on top of the others to make sure it's not too painful to migrate stuff over from SySv (well, guess what: it's worse than porting stuff to systemd
).
That said, I'm way more familiar with bash scripting, so of course, writing SysV init script feels more natural to me
.
Of course, I'm exaggerating a bit, in the end, after reading the cookbook a couple of times (and banging my head against a wall/facepalming a couple of times ;p), the first thing I wrote ended up working as it should
(... so far ^^).
And that's just a gut reaction on a first approach, not to be taken too seriously, I don't really have anything against it (or the guys who devised it), I'm just not really enjoying working with it
.
I'm actually curious, though: do anyone other than Canonical uses it these days?