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.
No, it's not bad.
tbh, I've always like Apple's launchd.
Getting a "control center" for your init, with user groups, modularity, memory limits and queryable status/control is great. (Sometime people forget how painful init scripts can be...)
The only problem I see is the tendency to cram everything into systemd.
I absolutely agree with you, but not quite on the las point. SystemD is modular, right? I can still pick and choose something else for tasks that SystemD handles. Also, it might be a good idea anyways to centralize some common tools for distros and devote developer ressources somewhere more specific and necessary.
It'll always be an open field of software stacks to choose from, but having one big, featureful and solid base stack for most usecases seems like a win to me. It's all completely FOSS anyway, it's not like we are risking a vendor lock-in here.
It often feels like people only complain about things because they are not used to them