Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday August 19 2014, @12:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-either-love-it-or-hate-it dept.

The good people over at Infoworld have published a story outlining why they feel systemd is a disaster.

Excerpt from Infoworld:

While systemd has succeeded in its original goals, it's not stopping there. systemd is becoming the Svchost of Linux—which I don't think most Linux folks want. You see, systemd is growing, like wildfire, well outside the bounds of enhancing the Linux boot experience. systemd wants to control most, if not all, of the fundamental functional aspects of a Linux system—from authentication to mounting shares to network configuration to syslog to cron. It wants to do so as essentially a monolithic entity that obscures what's happening behind the scenes.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @03:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @03:49PM (#83129)

    Arrive at work at morning, turn desktop on. Leave work at night, turn desktop off.

    Solved by a working hibernate to disk. Arrive at work, hit "on" button, unhibernate, work.

    Leave at night, hibernate back to disk, power down, wait for morning.

    Also for laptops, if you're not going to use it for more than a few hours, it's better for the battery to turn it off completely.

    Also solved by a working hibernate and working suspend.

    Am I going away from it for 60 minutes - hibernate to disk.

    Am I powering it off to take it through TSA's body cavity search? Hibernate to disk.

    The solution is not to "cold boot faster". The solution is "never need to cold boot, ever".

    If all this effort spent on rewriting an init had been spent on fixing issues with suspend/hibernate, image where Linux's suspend/hibernate would be now.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by forsythe on Tuesday August 19 2014, @05:07PM

    by forsythe (831) on Tuesday August 19 2014, @05:07PM (#83169)

    If all this effort spent on rewriting an init had been spent on fixing issues with suspend/hibernate, image where Linux's suspend/hibernate would be now.

    Tongue in cheek, I can imagine. We'd have ``hibernated'' running on PID 1 and it would be slowly engulfing cron, video drivers, input devices, udev, network management, and a host of other things. I don't think I want ``all this effort'' to be spent on anything close to what I use, actually. Effort is good, but not this effort.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @05:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @05:37PM (#83179)

    That's YOUR solution(*). Not everone elses.

    *) and currently mine as well. this thing wakes up from suspend under a second. if hibernate was an option i'd rather reboot since 16 gigabytes is a whole lot of shit to read from disk.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @11:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @11:34PM (#83289)

      if hibernate was an option i'd rather reboot since 16 gigabytes is a whole lot of shit to read from disk.

      Except that, unless you are doing something really weird, most of that 16gigabytes is cached filesystem data. So step one in a hibernate is: sync dirty disk caches out to their backing files. After syncing all the cached filesystem data, what's left to actually write to disk is often far less data than 16G (on the order of 2-4G). That's a lot faster than a reboot, which entails restarting your "desktop" (in whatever form it is) as well as restarting any running programs and getting back to where you were in those running programs.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 23 2014, @07:18AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 23 2014, @07:18AM (#84618)

        Even 2-4GB is a gargantuan amount of data. Not only the actual working set of whatever you are doing is way less than that but most of it is also redundant. If we didn't have as braindamaged systems as we do, the computer could very well boot "instantly" to the point where you could continue doing whatever you were when you shut it down. You've just learned to accept that it doesn't.

        Heck, even PCs used to do that pretty fast at some point. The slowest part might have very well been turning on the CRT since it needed some physical warm-up time to be usable.