Linux

48376 readers

1789 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

132

Is Systemd that bad afterall? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Nuuskis@sopuli.xyz to c/linux@lemmy.ml

185 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lengsel@latte.isnot.coffee 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] tedvdb@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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!

[–] agitated_judge@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] lengsel@latte.isnot.coffee 4 points 1 year ago

BSD does that without systemd.

[–] Nuuskis@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Funnily enough a lack of isolation is exactly what I hated most about the init scripts. Particularly the lack of isolation from the caller's environment, user,...