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

[–] spark947@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it is one of those situations where everyone complains about what they use.

The reality is that system startup is insanely complicated due to the nature of software dependencies, and there will never be a perfect solution across multiple distros.

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

Lot's of things in computing should be simplified. Especially bios firmware / boot process. It has become overly complicated mess offering zero value for anybody. In 10 years the bios chip size has increased from 8 mbit to 256 mbit and no features added. Only TPM 2.0 has been added, but it is another chip than bios.

[–] jarfil@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Haven't you heard? The UEFI bios can have binaries included by the board manufacturer that Windows will ask for and automatically run on startup... for example to download a GigaByte control center installer to fill your recent install with crapware... that would then proceed to download a self-update from a http (no-s) URL. And the binaries will work even if they're signed with revoked certificates and have been injected by any device with DMA access!

That's... like... super cool, isn't it? If only we could have that on Linux... /s

Also, the modern bioses have pretty graphics and mouse support... /s/s

[–] Nuuskis@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I noticed this driver crapware by updating the mobo bios I bought used. Luckily MSI has a rollback tool lol.

My i5-2500K had a nice GUI bios with 16 mbit bios chip. Including UEFI and Secureboot and other modern features.