3 ms·

> The one on the left gets caught on raising network interfaces I mentioned in the parent that Oasis had already booted before the delay even begins. I also m

by dijit 4y ago

> The one on the left gets caught on raising network interfaces I mentioned in the parent that Oasis had already booted before the delay even begins. I also mentioned that it's not really fair to compare Debian being greatly optimised: I was measuring the practical loading time of a stock VM (that was optimised for being a VM in Debians case and which bypassed the BIOS). The images I used were the cloud optimised ones that have a slimmed down/optimised kernel for QEMU: https://cdimage.debian.org/images/cloud/ https://cdimage.debian.org/images/cloud/

bee_rider 4y ago
But still: > I don’t think that’s true. There's no reason not to believe zamadatix, right? It is probably the case that they are making an irrelevant comparison, but not an untrue one.
- dijit 4y ago
  I think there's sufficient reason to not believe him without evidence. Oasis took under a second to get to a login prompt, Debian took about 1.5-2s. UEFI BIOS takes longer than that on every system I've ever used, even little fanless ones(they weren't ever faster actually). So this claim alone makes me suspicious; but also booting faster than Oasis, on worse hardware, with more steps than my system with the slower of the two OS's I ran. I mean, there's a point where you suspend disbelief without evidence.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Am I misreading something? They said their system booted faster than the slow debian boot that you've shown, I think. That took (including the network time) like 8s to boot. It isn't surprising that they have a system that boots in 8s. As you note in the comment, it hangs on the network, but that's part of the boot. It is an irrelevant comparison, but there's no reason to call them a liar over it, because it is not that surprising that a system can boot in 8s.

3 ms·

> The one on the left gets caught on raising network interfaces I mentioned in the parent that Oasis had already booted before the delay even begins. I also m

by dijit 4y ago

bee_rider 4y ago
But still: > I don’t think that’s true. There's no reason not to believe zamadatix, right? It is probably the case that they are making an irrelevant comparison, but not an untrue one.
- dijit 4y ago
  I think there's sufficient reason to not believe him without evidence. Oasis took under a second to get to a login prompt, Debian took about 1.5-2s. UEFI BIOS takes longer than that on every system I've ever used, even little fanless ones(they weren't ever faster actually). So this claim alone makes me suspicious; but also booting faster than Oasis, on worse hardware, with more steps than my system with the slower of the two OS's I ran. I mean, there's a point where you suspend disbelief without evidence.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Am I misreading something? They said their system booted faster than the slow debian boot that you've shown, I think. That took (including the network time) like 8s to boot. It isn't surprising that they have a system that boots in 8s. As you note in the comment, it hangs on the network, but that's part of the boot. It is an irrelevant comparison, but there's no reason to call them a liar over it, because it is not that surprising that a system can boot in 8s.