you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Why would you want to. Systemd is the standard for a reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It does have disadvantages. The only real advantage of it is the completeness of system administration tools. Since they aren't that much needed on a phone and the performance of that class of devices is not groundbreaking, using another init system is a good idea. Though it depends on what the specific user wants of course. As long as there is a way to change the init system, it shouldn't be a problem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Another init will be slower and will require much more time and resources though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Don't believe. Do you have any proof of that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Systemd was created to allow parallel initialization, which other init systems lacked. If you want proof that one processor core is slower than one + n, you don't need to compare init systems to do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Systemd is the standard for a reason.

    1. bad build process
    2. ignoring best practice
    3. RedHat forcing it on the planet
    4. people forgetting that every deliverable of systemd is a lie.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago*

    I don't have an opinion on the whole systemd debate but are you going to expand on what you're meaning, or will just keep spewing bs bullet points? Specially n4, wtf do you mean by that?

  • source
  • parent