3 ms·
> What is it about init systems that causes this outrage? I like systemd. It has shaven quite a few seconds off my boot time. I get that its modularity simplif
by lake99 12y ago
> What is it about init systems that causes this outrage?
I like systemd. It has shaven quite a few seconds off my boot time. I get that its modularity simplifies things for the developer. However, I understand some of that outrage. Linux systems have typically been mix-and-match. However, when systemd started gaining popularity, some packages have been written to depend on it, and it seems to be becoming difficult for people to choose not to have systemd. Given that systemd is built to make good use of Linux-specific features, it's also annoying for *BSD developers to get many software packages to build and run on their systems.
Look at the output from my own setup:
Required By : accountsservice bluez-utils chromium colord crda device-mapper lib32-systemd
libgusb libpulse libusb lightdm lvm2 media-player-info mesa mkinitcpio
netctl packagekit pcmciautils polkit procps-ng python2-pyudev qt5-base
qtwebkit rtkit spotify subversion systemd-sysvcompat udisks2 upower
xf86-input-evdev
I don't understand why many of these packages need systemd.
- keithpeter 12y ago"I don't understand why many of these packages need systemd." Exactly the issue I think. I'm wondering (not trolling) how many desktop people actually reboot the kernel (fresh boot or resume from hibernate) as opposed to using suspend to ram? Given the outrage the Gnome devs caused by hiding the power down function on early versions of Gnome 3 quite a few. I generally just suspend, but I've recently started using hibernate on one laptop with whole disk encryption just in case of petty theft/leaving it on a bus. Do any sysadmins use automatic spinning up of instances of a small Linux to cope with traffic spikes? Is that something that is actually done? Boot time could matter then.