On 1/25/21 5:50 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:31:08PM +0000, Miles ONeal wrote:
>>
>> | For me, the issues are not policital, but technical:
>>
>> Agreed. One of mine is that the surety of being able to drop a lower runlevel and back up is gone. ...
>>
> 
> 
> If you ask me, systemd was designed and built to solve one and only one problem,
> boot it's author's personal 1 core 300 MHz laptop as fast as possible. Today,
> with 4 core 3000 MHz laptops and 16 core 4000 MHz "servers", many features
> of systemd look quaint. ("waiting for USB devices to settle", really?).
> 
> Benchmarks that report "old" and "slow" SysV initscripts boot as fast as systemd
> tend to support this viewpoint.
> 
> Each time I look at the systemd boot sequence trace, I see things like
> "waiting 10 sec for disks that are not needed for booting" and
> "waiting 10 sec for network not needed for booting". If unlucky, also see
> "waiting forever for disk that failed and was removed" (hello, booting from degraded btrfs raid array).
> 
> How this stuff got into "E" linux and why paying customers put up with this,
> is a mystery to me. Perhaps said paying customers "never reboot" and never
> see systemd shortcomings (and get no benefit from "systemd fast booting").
> 

As I mentioned before, there's a lot more to systemd then what the user 
sees or cares about. Most people don't care about fast boot and I rarely 
boot my servers. Yet, I do rely on a lot of things in systemd (see 
previous email about dealing with stuck NVidia GPU's).

It's not that I don't see systemd shortcomings. It has some. But so did 
SysV and the old init.

Again, it's just a tool. How it is used and if it is used well is up to 
the one who needs to use it. :-)

~Stack~