3 ms·
As I have said 80 seconds or 20 seconds are not hard numbers, just used as an example. It can simply be rephrased as 4x speedup. I am not sure how the uptime ar
by riyadparvez 10y ago
As I have said 80 seconds or 20 seconds are not hard numbers, just used as an example. It can simply be rephrased as 4x speedup. I am not sure how the uptime argument is relevant here.
> if using Linux as a desktop OS, aren't pestered by the extra handful of seconds.
Your last point seems argument for the sake of argument. We are in a technical discussion, not a religious discussion. I did not buy a 8-core CPU to wait extra seconds paying electricity bill for the unused CPUs to validate someones hatred for some specific init system. If systemd can better utilize my system resource and cut my waiting time, I am going to use that. My lost time is the real issue, someones irrational hatred for something bears no value to me.
- mjolk 10y ago> I am not sure how the uptime argument is relevant here. Init-time amortized over uptime. 5 seconds to boot is a big deal for a box that comes up, lives for 60 seconds, then dies. Not so much for a box that comes up in 5 seconds and stays on for 2 years. > Your last point seems argument for the sake of argument. We are in a technical discussion, not a religious discussion. And yet, you're making up numbers to paint a picture you want others to see. You suggest that I'm arguing from opinion when you're making up details because you want to be seen as correct. > If systemd can better utilize my system resource and cut my waiting time, I am going to use that. My lost time is the real issue, someones irrational hatred for something bears no value to me. Then use systemd. Or don't. This is what I meant about "perceived." You perceive init's boot time to be your/an issue. I haven't had such a problem. --- You're coming off as dramatic and aggressively-emotional, which is my cue to walk away from our exchange.