Is Systemd that bad afterall?
SystemD is blamed for long boot times and being heavy and bloated on resources. I tried OpenRC and Runit on real hardware (Ryzen 5000-series laptop) for week each and saw only 1 second faster boot time.
I'm old enough to remember plymouth.service (graphical image) being the most slowest service on boot in Ubuntu 16.04 and 18.04. But I don't see that as an issue anymore. I don't have a graphical systemD boot on my Arch but I installed Fedora Sericea and it actually boots faster than my Arch despite the plymouth (or whatever they call it nowadays).
My 2 questions:
- Is the current SystemD rant derived from years ago (while they've improved a lot)?
- Should Linux community rant about bigger problems such as Wayland related things not ready for current needs of normies?
You are viewing a single comment
I guess I'm in the camp if it doing too much. I prefer each program has its own script to run in a more isolated manner from anything else the system does so if one program locks up everything else on the system runs independent from the other software that has stopped responding to system calls.
I partially agree. But on the other hand I like the convenience.
Example: I need to enable ntp client on a machine? Just enable and start the service and done!
You don't need systemd for that. It has always been the case before systemd even existed.
BSD does that without systemd.
I enjoy the seamless experience it offers. I doubt Linux in general could be noticeable faster with better optimized SystemD or with perfect init for speed.