▲ 343 ▼ Linux Mobile Distro postmarketOS Adopts systemd to Better Support GNOME, KDE Plasma (9to5linux.com) submitted 2 years ago by petsoi@discuss.tchncs.de to c/linux@lemmy.ml 32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) Why would you want to. Systemd is the standard for a reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Another init will be slower and will require much more time and resources though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't believe. Do you have any proof of that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xcjs@programming.dev 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I've never heard of that. I only heard that other init systems usually have better performance. And well even if it's not the case, security is another massive concern permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xcjs@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I'm not sure if systemd is really much worse. permalink fedilink source parent [+] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca -14 points 2 years ago (3 children) Systemd is the standard for a reason. bad build process ignoring best practice RedHat forcing it on the planet people forgetting that every deliverable of systemd is a lie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago Lmao permalink fedilink source parent [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 years ago* Can you explain in a little more detail? permalink fedilink source parent [–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Another init will be slower and will require much more time and resources though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't believe. Do you have any proof of that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xcjs@programming.dev 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I've never heard of that. I only heard that other init systems usually have better performance. And well even if it's not the case, security is another massive concern permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xcjs@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I'm not sure if systemd is really much worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Another init will be slower and will require much more time and resources though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't believe. Do you have any proof of that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xcjs@programming.dev 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I've never heard of that. I only heard that other init systems usually have better performance. And well even if it's not the case, security is another massive concern permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xcjs@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I'm not sure if systemd is really much worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't believe. Do you have any proof of that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xcjs@programming.dev 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I've never heard of that. I only heard that other init systems usually have better performance. And well even if it's not the case, security is another massive concern permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xcjs@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I'm not sure if systemd is really much worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xcjs@programming.dev 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I've never heard of that. I only heard that other init systems usually have better performance. And well even if it's not the case, security is another massive concern permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xcjs@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I'm not sure if systemd is really much worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I've never heard of that. I only heard that other init systems usually have better performance. And well even if it's not the case, security is another massive concern permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xcjs@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I'm not sure if systemd is really much worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xcjs@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I'm not sure if systemd is really much worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca -14 points 2 years ago (3 children) Systemd is the standard for a reason. bad build process ignoring best practice RedHat forcing it on the planet people forgetting that every deliverable of systemd is a lie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago Lmao permalink fedilink source parent [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 years ago* Can you explain in a little more detail? permalink fedilink source parent [–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 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? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 years ago* Can you explain in a little more detail? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 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? permalink fedilink source parent