Is Systemd that bad afterall?
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're viewing a single thread.
systemd is a godsend when you need service control while getting actual work done, at scale.
there are legitimate things to criticize but in general the rants are incompetent preaching to the uninformed.
systemd is a godsend when you need service control while getting actual work done, at scale.
there are legitimate things to criticize but in general the rants are incompetent preaching to the uninformed.
Service control was systemd's main benefit and what it most excelled at. Having shell scripts for everything was a legitimate pain. It was all the other pieces of the ecosystem that it was wanting to subsume that got people upset (logging, cron, time, hostname, login, etc). Journald/binary logs was the main sticking point that I recall, though I figured it was a trade-off that was worth it, especially since you could have journald keep dumping to text anyway.