The project is in an too early phase to debate over SystemD. Can you guys please hold back with these arguments until pmOS reaches at least 4% market share.
There is no minimum market share threshold to discuss the way the software you use is being developed and PostmarketOS will not reach 4% in the foreseeable future (and it probably never will). Desktop Linux only just reached that threshold after decades of work and systemd arguments have been happening for years regardless. The conditions for mobile Linux are considerably less favorable. If we can't discuss systemd until 4% is reached, we can't discuss systemd ever. Which is fair, because the systemd horse has already been beaten to death at this point. But not because it hasn't reached some arbitrary 4% threshold. That makes no sense.
If we can't discuss systemd until 4% is reached, we can't discuss systemd ever. Which is fair, because the systemd horse has already been beaten to death at this point.
Exactly :)
Well you're right but the more postmarketOS grows, the harder it is to switch to another init system
They are giving options, no one is forced anything. People should complain upstream at init systems and desktopmobile environments.
Why would you want to. Systemd is the standard for a reason.
It does have disadvantages. The only real advantage of it is the completeness of system administration tools. Since they aren't that much needed on a phone and the performance of that class of devices is not groundbreaking, using another init system is a good idea. Though it depends on what the specific user wants of course. As long as there is a way to change the init system, it shouldn't be a problem
Another init will be slower and will require much more time and resources though.
Don't believe. Do you have any proof of that?
Systemd was created to allow parallel initialization, which other init systems lacked. If you want proof that one processor core is slower than one + n, you don't need to compare init systems to do that.
I've never heard of that. I only heard that other init systems usually have better performance. And well even if it's not the case, security is another massive concern
I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I'm not sure if systemd is really much worse.
Systemd is the standard for a reason.
bad build process
ignoring best practice
RedHat forcing it on the planet
people forgetting that every deliverable of systemd is a lie.
Lmao
I don't have an opinion on the whole systemd debate but are you going to expand on what you're meaning, or will just keep spewing bs bullet points? Specially n4, wtf do you mean by that?
The project is in an too early phase to debate over SystemD. Can you guys please hold back with these arguments until pmOS reaches at least 4% market share.
There is no minimum market share threshold to discuss the way the software you use is being developed and PostmarketOS will not reach 4% in the foreseeable future (and it probably never will). Desktop Linux only just reached that threshold after decades of work and systemd arguments have been happening for years regardless. The conditions for mobile Linux are considerably less favorable. If we can't discuss systemd until 4% is reached, we can't discuss systemd ever. Which is fair, because the systemd horse has already been beaten to death at this point. But not because it hasn't reached some arbitrary 4% threshold. That makes no sense.
Exactly :)
Well you're right but the more postmarketOS grows, the harder it is to switch to another init system
They are giving options, no one is forced anything. People should complain upstream at init systems and
desktopmobile environments.Why would you want to. Systemd is the standard for a reason.
It does have disadvantages. The only real advantage of it is the completeness of system administration tools. Since they aren't that much needed on a phone and the performance of that class of devices is not groundbreaking, using another init system is a good idea. Though it depends on what the specific user wants of course. As long as there is a way to change the init system, it shouldn't be a problem
Another init will be slower and will require much more time and resources though.
Don't believe. Do you have any proof of that?
Systemd was created to allow parallel initialization, which other init systems lacked. If you want proof that one processor core is slower than one + n, you don't need to compare init systems to do that.
I've never heard of that. I only heard that other init systems usually have better performance. And well even if it's not the case, security is another massive concern
I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I'm not sure if systemd is really much worse.
Lmao
I don't have an opinion on the whole systemd debate but are you going to expand on what you're meaning, or will just keep spewing bs bullet points? Specially n4, wtf do you mean by that?
Can you explain in a little more detail?
And? :)