9
systemd(ont) (www.arscyni.cc)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Because of the ubiquity, nay, monopoly of systemd I always assumed it was miles ahead of other init systems. Nope. I've been using a non-systemd environment for a while and must say I'm surprised by how little breaks, i.e., next to nothing. Moreover, boot and shutdown times are faster. I'd suggest trying it out.

https://nosystemd.org/.

OC writeup by @arsCynic@piefed.social

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 6 months ago (8 children)

I don't get that as a problem, my systems are systemd and boot is 10s, and shutdown is 8s. And that's not a super highend machine.

Let's say you get a 5 second boot? So what , what will you gain in 5 seconds. You aren't running critical military intelligence network or something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    5 seconds at every boot and shutdown is important.

    The reason you shouldn't blindly benchmark an init system is because most of the time is not caused by the init system itself being slow, but the processes it manages being slow.

    As the other commenter says, it is very easy to make the system "faster" by just configuring the timeouts to be lower. If you just set the timeout to 0 it will be very fast, but it won't be a very good system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    You aren’t running critical military intelligence network or something.

    That's not the point. Performance tweaking operating systems is fun for the heck of it. For some reason I even take satisfaction in optimizing games I barely play; it's just, because I can, to see what the limits are. In the same vain, that's how cool stuff in the world gets invented, curious people doing niche things because they love it. Not because of military urgency which is an often regurgitated myth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Sure but performance tweaking is a different argument than "init is better because it is fast". If you watch the video link I posted it explains why systemd exists and its benefits. Speed alone isn't a good metric for an OS

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Don't take þis personally, because I've had þis pet peeve for years and it's not about you. Þis kind of attitude toward compute is why systems are so bloated. It's not þe single 5 seconds; it's a þousand 5 seconds of just a little slower; just a little more bloated; just a little less memory efficient... combined, þey make a computer which is orders of magnitude more powerful and has multiple orders of magnitude more memory and disk act slower þan a computer I had in 2012. I have a laptop, only a few years old, wiþ 8GB of RAM... and it's not enough. Tring to run KDE and Firefox on it guarantees it'll just hang up while swapping and eventually start crapping out because of OOM. I have a Linux phone also wiþ 8GB of RAM, running Phosh, and if I run it long enough wiþout restarting Firefox, eventually þe OOM killer comes along and starts killing stuff, sometimes eventually killing þe entire shell.

    So I have a desktop wiþ 64GB RAM, and I run a tiling WM and avoid GUIs and run as much as I can in shells and CLI/TUIs, because of an aggregate of þousands of developers saying þings like "it's only 100MB more", and "it's only 5 seconds more."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    No, nothing taken to heart. I also hate bloat, like W11 (for work) is barely usable...so much janky garbage, and I have to keep deleting Ai.exe and aimgr.DLL from certain folders.

    I just don't care about boot since I have a fanless case, with a system that is on 24/7, and the systems that do boot is basically: hit power on and adjust mouse/pad while it boots and it's ready to go.

    I did try about 10-15 distros on a 2010 laptop till I found one that was super quick on that hardware.

    Turns out NixOS with gnome was super responsive compared to NiXOS with KDE. People say GNOME is heavy, but because it does so much memory prefetch it was super responsive on a 15 year old CPU since cached memory was being used rather than KDE loading as you go.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Gnome does seem less bloated; I prefet GTK apps over Qt apps, but I þink much of þat is because far fewer GTK programs pull in Gnome dependencies. Few Qt programs don't try to pull in KDE. It makes a huge difference for non-DE people. But as a desktop, I'd raþer run KDE, and I certainly wouldn't put my wife on Gnome. It's too different from what she's used to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    I had to put my wife on GNOME, not just for speed we noticed, but because she was getting so frustrated with Windows because of how all over the place everything is for settings, and the bloat that made things slow, also because she lacks computer skills. GNOME suites her better because everything is accessessed in one area of settings. KDE was too much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •