On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Keith Lofstrom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If systemd is a major resource hog, ...
...

On 02/13/2015 09:06 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> The difficulty is that it's creeping into levels and components that
> didn't ask for it and don't need it, and thus becoming even more
...

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:25:23PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I'll be clear that there are things about systemd that do bug me, and it 
> has taken a while to grow on me, but I think too much of the discussion 
...

Well, hm.  My questions about systemd (some may be hard to measure):

1) Does systemd use a LOT more RAM, like > 200MB, that cannot swap out?
2) Does systemd use a LOT more CPU cycles, slowing down user performance? 
3) Will systemd require Gnome 3/4/5/..N to manage properly?
4) Can systemd /var/log files (or equivalent) be logrotated?

If the answers are yes/yes/yes/no, then I will dread it.  If systemd
is "merely" hard to understand and use, oh well.  If it (eventually)
grows on you, or permits significant system tuning and leads to
runtime improvements that were not easy before, I hope that usable
interfaces and understandable documentation will someday emerge.

Systemd is Red Hat's brainfart.  Their user base is institutions,
not consumer tablets.  If systemd cripples Red Hat customers,
Red Hat will either fix the behavior, or go bankrupt and stop
pushing it.  I will count on the last two correctives to keep
systemd from becoming a worst-case nightmare.  ("Red Hat?  The
Netflix Goggles software team?  Didn't they do Linux, long ago?")

Keith

-- 
Keith Lofstrom          [log in to unmask]