Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> 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}