> ...are you claiming that openrc is BETTER than systemd...

If I were making that claim, I would have made it.

OpenRC's sysvrc replacement is at least as good as systemd's sysvrc replacement. Moreover, I have much more faith in abilities and reasonableness of the OpenRC Cabal than I do those of the Systemd Cabal.

> True - but that is a good question by itself right ? Why...

I'll ask again. Can you get into specifics about why "[d]eploying web-services on systemd is so much better..."? All I'm getting from you is soundbites and equivocation.

> ...[systemd] is making my linux machine extremely stable...

In the ~20 years that I've been using Linux, I've never had instability introduced by an init or RC system. What init or RC-induced instability have you observed in your Linux systems?

> Supervisord ... [has the] same concept of unit files, declarative language,etc ...

Does this mean that that the meaning of the keywords and parameters in supervisord's config files is very close or identical to those in systemd? Or does it just mean that supervisord's configuration files are in .INI format, just like systemd's?

If the latter, then who cares?

1) Superficial syntax similarities do not necessarily enhance understanding. In cases where similar keywords mean differing things in two different systems, they can (and often do) cause confusion and misunderstanding.

2) Startup files for services whose startup sequence is the most complex you can handle in a systemd unit file are equally terse and readable in both systemd and OpenRC. [0] If the startup requirements are more complex than this, systemd has to call out to a shell script(!) or other external program. OpenRC (and other sysvrc replacements) that use interpreted startup scripts can bake such functionality right in to the startup script. This means that -in these systems- you only need to ship and maintain one file, rather than two. ;)

> Where is [systemd] making everyone's life hard...

Systemd is worrisome for several reasons:

1) systemd's scope continues to creep.

2) The Systemd Cabal continues to assert that pretty much every part of systemd is optional. An honest look at the state of systemd and projects like Gnome puts the lie to that statement.

3) Systemd continues to assert that systemd is faster than anything out there. Real-world observation indicates that this means that they've never heard of -say- OpenRC.

4) The Systemd Cabal continues to assert that systemd is modular. They assert that anyone can read their documentation and reimplement any part of systemd. Many people have attempted to do this and found the documentation sorely lacking.

5) The Systemd Cabal aggressively refuses patches that fix breakage that they introduced by changing decades-old behavior for no better reason than "The behavior was legacy and thus broken.". [4]

In short, the attitudes of the people in charge of the project are dreadfully worrisome. Having udrepper in charge of glibc was bad enough. Systemd's devs are substantially more bullheaded, and the project itself is angling to swallow almost all of Linux userspace.

[0] See Nailer's representative systemd unit file at [1] and my conversion of it to an OpenRC startup script. [2] Also, notice the confusion that one has when one is not already familiar with the keywords contained in a systemd unit file. [3]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10355588

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10357010

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10356330

[4] Their attitude on such things has been summarized as "Fuck your usecase.".