3 ms·
Sure (although 5-12 minutes is very odd no matter how you slice it), but that's a bit of a false choice. I have nothing against systemd personally, but I recogn
by lordgroff 5y ago
Sure (although 5-12 minutes is very odd no matter how you slice it), but that's a bit of a false choice. I have nothing against systemd personally, but I recognize more and more that a good part of the reason is because I never had to use it in anger.
There were other choices that Linux could have taken rather than sysvinit vs init.d and some distros through the years have taken different approaches. FreeBSD's rc.d is not sysvinit either.
- throwawayboise 5y agoThe Linux machines that I have managed that took anywhere close to that long to boot (older IBM and HP) just have a very lengthy BIOS/POST start-up process. Once you got through that, the OS (RHEL 5 at the time) booted up pretty quickly.
- throwawaysysd 5y ago>There were other choices that Linux could have taken rather than sysvinit vs init.d I don't think that is true. If you look at those other distros you'll mostly find that it either didn't pan out, or it's quickly approaching the same design and architecture of systemd, where distros start using declarative prgramming to integrate tooling around common workflows. This is inevitable when you consider the constraints on the system as a whole. Other related service management tools like Docker are under the same constraints and you'll notice those have a similar architecture too.