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~