Linux

48247 readers

506 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

nooter692@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

140

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

184 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

[–] highduc@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] nitrolife@rekabu.ru 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

can't you replace UNIX applications in user space? Why, besides the fact that some simply have nothing to replace?