Create a service that starts on boot:
cat > /etc/systemd/example.service << EOF
[Unit]
After=network.target
[Service]
User=example
ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/example
[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target
EOF
systemctl enable --now example
And the harder things get, the bigger the advantage. Like if you want to mount a disk, create a socket, and then afterward start unprivileged service...all very simple.The huge list of services with not-for-human names so your job can look complicated and essential.
It's been 10 years now? I wouldn't go back, most of the suggested alternatives are so basic that troubleshooting becomes a chore. Almost all the hate is because they don't like Lennart.
We should fork it, get someone else to head that with a different name to get them on board.
Yeah, the dependency is a fine feature, but before it was even *easier*... just put a number on the rc.d symlink.
c'mon, if you think that is harder than editing a dozen files, remembering weirdly named camelCase attributes and then pointing to randomly named services, then i don't know what to say. But again, i also accepted it, for better or worse.
Now, i don't care about lennart, but i hated systemd for most of the time because they pushed an incomplete crap over something that was working, just to get contributors. If redhat wanted their cisco/windows services management clone, they could have worked on it. Doing what they did (i call it to pull a gnome) was just shitty behaviour and they should always be remembered for such action.
I think this why a lot of people really hate systemd. Suddenly a bunch of arcane knowledge used to maintain specific scripts got made redundant.
Also, I have only seen two or so massive scripts about services. Most of them were slight variations of a standard boilerplate code.