Originally posted by NotMine999
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Debian Moves Closer To Voting On Proposals Over Init System Diversity
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 2
-
Originally posted by NotMine999 View PostAnd I'm not vaping here. The boot time results for the systemd versions come straight from the "systemd-analyze blame" command and point straight to a systemd service loading & failing.
systemd services are created by the distro, not by systemd upstream.
"systemd-analyze blame" is a diagnostic tool to find what service file is wrong, because upstream knows full well that someone somewhere will write bs in their service config file, and has made a tool that allows you to find the culprit in seconds.
And you, evil genius, not only you don't use it to fix the issue, but somehow think that using it makes your point more valid. Of course it's a systemd service that blocks boot, every system service is using systemd in that distro.
The sysvinit-based distributions would load to a LxQt desktop login prompt in 15 seconds.
Comment
-
Systemd - Progress Through Complexity
OCS-Mag; Updated October 19, 2016
Comment
-
Originally posted by coder View PostThat's my main gripe with it - that it defies the concept of modularity. They should've focused on standardizing a set of interfaces, so that different services could be swapped out for various duties.
Only problem is, nobody seems to want to... many people complain about the lack of alternative implementations, but there have been very few attempts to create one, and even fewer that have gone anywhere. Turns out that while complaining is easy, committing to build and maintain code is much harder...Last edited by Delgarde; 18 November 2019, 10:45 AM.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by waxhead View PostBingo, I admit to not knowing the details, but at the same time I would think that a lot of systemd functionality could simply be ignored which would make the implementation easier. E.g. for most things slices (cgroups) that takes care of memory constraints and resource limits, i bet it could be mostly ignored and things would work just fine for most programs anyway.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostNot a blob, but a bunch of daemons, see below for list
And when I said "blob", I didn't mean like literally a single daemon, I meant that it's encompassing more and more functionality. Like those old Blob That Ate ... movies, where some giant, gelatinous blob devours everything.
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostSorry what? You can mix and match every daemon.
Originally posted by starshipeleven View Postpretty much all your post is sugar-coated bullshit, there is no other plausible explanation.
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostTo change the system architecture you must control the core system components, duh.
There are loads of technical standards where people come together and agree on a standard interface or data format. You don't have to conquer userspace and mold it as you please, and then expose a few interfaces where you find it convenient to do so. That sort of fascist thinking doesn't fit well, in an open source ecosystem.Last edited by coder; 19 November 2019, 01:25 AM.
Comment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by anarki2 View PostAn init system isn't something that users care about.
Originally posted by anarki2 View Postwhatever cherry picked part in the toolchain having absolutely no impact on my work.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terrablit View PostActually, the end-user benefit of choice is a common fallacy. Consumers always claim to want choice, true. But it's been shown that consumers are actually less satisfied as the number of choices grows.
BTW, even when you're saying people are less happy with more choices, that doesn't mean they're always happiest with zero choices.
Originally posted by Terrablit View PostLinux is not about choice.
I just wonder how long it'll be, before systemd starts to infect the kernel.
Comment
Comment