3 ms·
Seems like that is mostly for the network-related stuff and not services, mounts, isolation/namespacing/containers, init, logging and so on. Aren't you comparin
by SahAssar 5y ago
Seems like that is mostly for the network-related stuff and not services, mounts, isolation/namespacing/containers, init, logging and so on. Aren't you comparing a basket of apples to an apple-slice?
- baybal2 5y agoYes, I do, but that's what I believe people look for when looking for running a server without 10 daemons to handle network configuration.
- SahAssar 5y agoI don't think systemd requires 10 daemons for network config, isn't it only systemd-resolvd for DNS, systemd-networkd for actual network, and systemd-timesyncd for NTP? If you only mean to say that you replace 3 bits of systemd then it would be good to say that, and to say which bits of systemd it replaces. A lot of distros do not even use those systemd services, for example ubuntu does not use systemd-networkd by default. I read "it weights only 1/100 of SystemD" as if it compared systemd to connman directly.