On 2024-06-16 19:27, Didier Kryn wrote:
>     Probably the strongest argument is the one of Peter Duffy. And also
> the great lie about systemd: it was meant to speed-up boot, which it
> fails to do, and actually it just replaces the traditional Unix/Linux
> "do one thing and to it well" commands by requests to a big do-it-all
> black-box.
>
>     All these syetemd afficionados, did they ever compare boot-speed? Do
> they have any idea of what the boot time is on a sans-systemd box?
> Boot-time is a non-existing problem and when one person or group
> pretends to solve a non-existing problem, they just lie to people to
> sale them something they would otherwise never buy.

I understand this is/was supposed be one "selling point", but, I don't
know anyone who says that it is the reason that systemd was created,
which it kind of sounds like you're saying.

Is that what your saying? Peter Duffy and whoever else claim that is the
reason for systemd's creation? I'd like to read the juicy details.

The "serious" reasons that are given for systemd (a unifying layer, a
improved init, etc.) are also equally non-existent problems.