▲ 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 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