Russell Coker <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Craig Sanders <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ps: systemd is CADT with the goal of fucking up your init system and
>> syslogd rather than just your window manager.
>
> The difference is that systemd provides some real benefits. It gives
> a much faster boot (apart from some bugs related to encrypted disks
> and fsck failures). Eventually it should give a more reliable system
> than the current set of shell scripts which currently do everything.
\begin{rant}
Compared to Debian 6, or compared to what you remember booting being
like five years ago? ISTR Ubuntu people making the assertions that
their installer was much "easier to use" than Debian's, despite them
being EXACTLY THE SAME (this was before ubiquity), simply because they
hadn't bothered to actually compare contemporary versions side-by-side.
How often do you actually boot anyway? My servers ideally boot about
once a year. I would MUCH rather have them boot reliably in five
minutes every time, than decide one time in five to just shit themselves
for no reason and require another two hours of unscheduled pissing
around because the fancy new init daemon decided to have a cyclic
dependency, or to panic because fsck failed on an unimportant LV because
it was flagged immutable and e2fsck didn't like that. (Granted, those
issues were with upstart.)
And for laptops, presumably your power management is good enough now
that you suspend to RAM or disk, you don't power off entirely.
Last time I measured it, my Eee PC 1005 -- an atom, hardly stellar --
booted Debian 6, including POST, in about fifteen seconds. Even if that
could be reduced to zero, and I rebooted *every day*, I really don't
give a shit about "optimizing" away fifteen seconds a day. If I did,
I'd switch to instant coffee, not systemd.
\end{rant}
_______________________________________________
luv-main mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
