But system init is a hard, complex problem. You can’t create a simple solution for that, since there is an inherent complexity. I prefer systemd over having a bunch of bash scripts trying to do service restart, logging, dependency management and failing at it. You would still get the same complexity but at a different (worse) level.
> But system init is a hard, complex problem. [...] a bunch of bash scripts trying to do service restart, logging, dependency management and failing at it.
Playing devil's advocate: system init by itself is easy, just have a single script starting each daemon in sequence, like it was done in the distant past (IIRC, "init" started both the getty for each terminal, and ran a single startup script). It's the "service restart, logging, dependency management" part that's complicated. And unfortunately, since nowadays devices are often hot-pluggable, you can't really escape from the "dependency management" part.
Dependency management is not only due to hot-pluggability, but inherent dependencies between different services. This is the same problem as with package managers and I would not necessarily say it is easy.
> The complexity is buried in the huge work the OpenBSD devs make to keep the kernel and the base system small, elegant and consistent.
>> You can’t create a simple solution for that, since there is an inherent complexity.
They didn't bury the complexity, they removed it. And I agree, that's hard to do. It'd be nice if the systemd folks put in the same effort to remove the complexity from their system.
