Kevin Chadwick via Dng said on Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:20:45 +0100

>On 16/06/2024 18:27, 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.
>
>When Arch adopted systemd. SSDs were just on the rise. I think people
>installed a new OS on a new laptop and were like wow it booted in
>seconds and attributed it to systemd because freedesktop said systemd
>was much faster.

Once I made a systemd system on 2010 hardware with spinning rust, and
it booted up in about 2 seconds with systemd. Big deal, it saved me 6
seconds over Epoch and 8 seconds over runit. For a lousy 6 or 8 seconds
I'm going to accept a Rube Goldberg architecture? I don't think so!

SteveT

Steve Litt

http://444domains.com