Yep, my point is that knowing shell scripting alone is no longer enough and it's not different than running `man systemd.service`, only that you're keeping the weirdness of the shell language just to set a couple of variables.
Except that rc.subr is shell scripting alone. It's literally a shell script that gets sourced into another shell script (in this case, your initscript), which is - again - ordinary shell behavior. Yeah, you have to learn a couple of shell functions and variables, but that's not really that big of a deal for someone with even cursory knowledge of shell scripting.
The bigger point, though, is that if your only goal is to have terse daemon configuration with a minimum of boilerplate, you can already do this with shell scripts. Even if you decide that shell scripts are the spawn of the devil and ought to be burned on the stake (which, honestly, isn't all that unreasonable of a decision), it's quite possible to implement the same functionality using Ruby or Python or Perl or C or Go or Rust or Erlang or Lisp or PHP or COBOL or MIPS assembly or whatever-the-hell-else you feel like writing init "scripts" in (with some exceptions; FreeBSD and NetBSD, for example, apparently launch initscripts with 'sh' instead of following the OpenBSD and GNU/Linux approach of calling initscripts as executables).
The biggest point, though, is that because of this, if your only goal is to have terse daemon configuration with a minimum of boilerplate, you can have that without having to learn at minimum two languages (one to write your initscripts and one to do all the rest of your day-to-day administration tasks). You just learn shell and you're done. With systemd, you still have to learn shell scripting for even systemd-related tasks (let alone non-systemd-related tasks) plus a new DSL that looks like INI but isn't quite INI. I guess that's tolerable coming from, say, the Windows world (where you're learning DOS batch language and PowerShell and VBScript and INI and Lord-knows-what-else), but that's double what a seasoned Unix admin requires in a non-systemd environment, which is pretty significant.
Again, "read the source" is a sad answer. I can read systemd C sources too, but given that it comes with proper documentation there should be no need to do it.
My point is that either one has to get some domain-specific knowledge or they have to reverse engineer some code. Given that I believe that the second one is a bad choice (people will rely on the implementation rather than on the intended interface) if you have to get some domain-specific knowledge it does not matter if you're using posix sh syntax or a INI-style one.
> your only goal is to have terse daemon configuration with a minimum of boilerplate, you can already do this with shell scripts
Literally nobody ever claimed that systemd "only goal" is to have terse daemon configuration. It was one of the many goals. Sure, it could have been done with posix sh syntax, nobody disputes that, but since backward compatibility was being dealt in other ways (using LSB header), switching to a INI-style format seems a good choice if one wants to enforce a declarative-only style.
And if someone claims that init script are needlessy complex and redundant it is because that's the situation of most distributions before the switch to systemd. Switching to OpenRC would probably have fixed that aspect, but systemd solves many more problems that distributors faced and OpenRC did not address, faring more positively in a costs/benefits analysis.
> Again, "read the source" is a sad answer. I can read systemd C sources too, but given that it comes with proper documentation there should be no need to do it.
rc.subr also comes with proper documentation, in the form of the rc.subr manpage, which comprehensively documents its behavior.
Barring that, you're delusional if you think that C is anywhere near as readable as shell in this sort of context.
> My point is that either one has to get some domain-specific knowledge
Arguably less of it in the case of rc.subr, since said knowledge is already part of basic shell scripting knowledge.
> Literally nobody ever claimed that systemd "only goal" is to have terse daemon configuration.
Nor did I. That doesn't change the fact that "OMG initscripts are so verbose with so much boilerplate; my unit files are so much better" is a commonly-cited reason for people to prefer systemd over other init systems, never mind that said reasoning is plainly false.
> the fact that "OMG initscripts are so verbose with so much boilerplate; my unit files are so much better" is a commonly-cited reason for people to prefer systemd over other init systems, never mind that said reasoning is plainly false
Indeed, I agree with that. The only advantage is that the restricted syntax of unit files is more suitable for error checking rather than having the shell complain more or less randomly, but compactness is not an intrinsic advantage of it.
That said, not every distribution standardized on such kind of helpers (ie. Debian), so in those cases compactness was one of the benefits of switching to systemd (not exclusive to it).
