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:

  1. Is the current SystemD rant derived from years ago (while they’ve improved a lot)?
  2. Should Linux community rant about bigger problems such as Wayland related things not ready for current needs of normies?
  • nitrolife@rekabu.ru
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    As service manager systemd nice, but look all services:

    systemd + systemd/journal + systemd/Timers
    systemd-boot
    systemd-creds
    systemd-cryptenroll
    systemd-firstboot
    systemd-home
    systemd-logind
    systemd-networkd
    systemd-nspawn
    systemd-resolved
    systemd-stub
    systemd-sysusers
    systemd-timesyncd
    

    That’s look as overkill. I use only systemd, journald, systemd-boot, systemd-networkd, systemd-resolved and systemd-timesyncd, but that a lot systemd. Feel like system make monolith.

    systemd-nspawn for example. Systems manager for containers. Seriously. Why than exists? I don’t understand. Really, someone use that daemon?

    • highduc@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that’s a bad argument. If you go out of your way to install and configure all of these, then yes, they exist and you can do that - but that doesn’t automatically mean they’re bad.

      But in most operating systems they’re not installed, not configured, and you’ll never have to deal with any of that.

      I actually use systemd-boot because it’s very easy to install and configure and systemd-resolved, but for a lot of those I haven’t even heard about.

      And furthermore even if more of them (I think it’s highly unlikely that any OS would use all of those services by default) were preinstalled, they’d only be an issue if they’d cause trouble. If your system is running systemd-whatever and it works well then what’s the issue? The name itself?

      • nitrolife@rekabu.ru
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        As I wrote below, the problem is that this does not comply with the principle of K.I.S.S. One application should solve one task and can be replaced. Even now it is quite difficult to remove systemd-logind, for example. Because, although these are different services, they have long merged into a huge tangle.

        I actually use systemd-boot because it’s very easy to install and configure and systemd-resolved, but for a lot of those I haven’t even heard about.

        you can use EFISTUB If you don’t have dual boot. This literally load kernel from UEFI. I don’t know more simple way. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/EFISTUB

        • IDe@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          does not comply with the principle of K.I.S.S. One application should solve one task and can be replaced

          That’s not KISS, but the UNIX principle. And even that part is wrong, as in traditional UNIXes applications were certainly not replaceable.

    • EddyBot@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Feel like system make monolith.

      you do know what the linux kernel is, right?
      Spoiler: It’s a monolithic kernel

      In the end your distro packager decided to not split systemd into different packages, I believe only Gentoo does actually guide you to this
      so you actually barking on the wrong tree