3 ms·

> Speeding up booting is a nice side benefit but not at all what systemd is about. That's a claim I've seen before. Maybe it's true, but it's not what I get fr

> Speeding up booting is a nice side benefit but not at all what systemd is about. That's a claim I've seen before. Maybe it's true, but it's not what I get from reading the initial introduction "Rethinking PID 1" [0] is that systemd is very much about fast booting. That blog story says: "As mentioned, the central responsibility of an init system is to bring up userspace. And a good init system does that fast. Unfortunately, the traditional SysV init system was not particularly fast. For a fast and efficient boot-up two things are crucial: - To start less. - And to start more in parallel. " The remainder of the post talks mainly about those things. In my mind, that clearly means that fast booting was the major design goal of the project. (Off topic to your comment, but what the post does not talk about is taking over lots of unrelated services. Even the name of Poettering's blog, "Pid Eins", seemed to indicate that systemd was meant only as an init-implementation. That would have been a lot better). [0] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html

diffeomorphism 7y ago
Same source http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html lists it as most common myth number 2. > This doesn't mean being fast was irrelevant for us, but reducing systemd to its speed is certainly quite a misconception, since that is certainly not anywhere near the top of our list of goals. > That would have been a lot better Yeah, I noticed that all the complaints about systemd almost never are about the init implementation. Instead people complain about journald (e.g. binary=plain text+time stamp instead of just plain text) or networkd or about Poettering or how there is some shadowy conspiracy. Honestly, I think if all the non-init parts had another name like "linux plumbing project" and were developed separately by non-Poettering, much fewer people would complain (even though the software is the exact same). It would also make discussions much clearer if people said in the beginning what exactly they are complaining about, e.g. "logind is buggy" instead of "systemd is evil".
- roelschroeven 7y ago
  > Same source http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html lists it as most common myth number 2. Indeed it does. As said before, Poettering opens his introductory blog post "Rethinking PID 1" with a bit of history, and then immediately writes "As mentioned, the central responsibility of an init system is to bring up userspace. And a good init system does that fast. Unfortunately, the traditional SysV init system was not particularly fast." That's the very first thing he writes about systemd. And the speed of booting comes up again and again in the blog post. Then how can it not have been one if his major considerations? So he's contradicting himself, or he changed his mind in the three years between those blog posts. > It would also make discussions much clearer if people said in the beginning what exactly they are complaining about, e.g. "logind is buggy" instead of "systemd is evil". That's what one gets if one puts everything under the same name, throw everything in one tarball.

diffeomorphism 7y ago

Same source http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html lists it as most common myth number 2. > This doesn't mean being fast was irrelevant for us, but reducing systemd to its speed is certainly quite a misconception, since that is certainly not anywhere near the top of our list of goals. > That would have been a lot better Yeah, I noticed that all the complaints about systemd almost never are about the init implementation. Instead people complain about journald (e.g. binary=plain text+time stamp instead of just plain text) or networkd or about Poettering or how there is some shadowy conspiracy. Honestly, I think if all the non-init parts had another name like "linux plumbing project" and were developed separately by non-Poettering, much fewer people would complain (even though the software is the exact same). It would also make discussions much clearer if people said in the beginning what exactly they are complaining about, e.g. "logind is buggy" instead of "systemd is evil".

roelschroeven 7y ago
> Same source http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html lists it as most common myth number 2. Indeed it does. As said before, Poettering opens his introductory blog post "Rethinking PID 1" with a bit of history, and then immediately writes "As mentioned, the central responsibility of an init system is to bring up userspace. And a good init system does that fast. Unfortunately, the traditional SysV init system was not particularly fast." That's the very first thing he writes about systemd. And the speed of booting comes up again and again in the blog post. Then how can it not have been one if his major considerations? So he's contradicting himself, or he changed his mind in the three years between those blog posts. > It would also make discussions much clearer if people said in the beginning what exactly they are complaining about, e.g. "logind is buggy" instead of "systemd is evil". That's what one gets if one puts everything under the same name, throw everything in one tarball.