Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I had a good experience with Void Linux a few years ago, and they use the 'runit' init system. I switched off because I was having driver problems, only later it turned out that the problems were hardware problems (I encountered the same issues in Ubuntu and Windows 10). But I was too lazy to reinstall Void.

That said, I'm sorry you have had headaches with systemd. I have it running on four computers at home and CentOS 7 is on hundreds of servers at work all without problems.

2

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

systemd works, and has some features that are desirable especially if you're running servers, the problems people usually lay out is that it's too bloated, and has grown to some monstrocity beyond what a simple init system requires. In my experience non-systemd OS boots a hell of alot faster and uses slightly less ram, which is nice if you have an old system with low resources.

I also hear a lot of political reasons that people oppose systemd , namely the hegemony of Gnome and Red Hat on linux world and the homogenizing effect this has had.

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Hegemony implies authoritarian control. People troll the systemd project and its supporters by using that label. Nobody in GNOME or Red Hat is forcing projects to adopt systemd, or outlawing forks of systemd, or similar.

Homogenizing is different. That's a legitimate problem for systemd. But since there is no hegemony, people can contribute to alternatives.

I think the perception systemd is bloated and slow is pushed by detractors without evidence. Replacing massive shell scripts used by sysv init with C code and text config files that support starting more services in parallel should reduce memory use and improve speed, and not the opposite. My systems boot faster with systemd than Upstart and SysV init systems booted on the same hardware (my two desktops are old).