berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote: > Bob Proulx a écrit: > >berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote: > > > The immediate problem to change the symlink to bash instead of dash > > > is that it will slow down his system boot sequence, ... > > > > I sometimes hear this but I disagree that boot speed causes this to > > be an immediate problem. Even on laptops the system is very > > stable. How often do people reboot? I do so only very seldom. > > Definitely for kernel security upgrades and so do reboot a handful > > of times a year. My view is, "So it might take another few seconds > > ever other month." > > That's your use. > My uses are plenty of shutdown. For my eeepc, it is possible that I > shut it down from 1 to 4 times per day, and for my desktop, it > entirely depends on what I am doing. Wow. 1-4 times a day? This really surprises me. Especially for an EEE PC netbook. Those generally suspend to ram and resume from ram very fast. And they live suspended for days and days. Even a hibernate to disk and resume from disk is quite fast. Why is it necessary to reboot? I would like to understand this use case better. > And that is because they are not old computers. I have a dinosaur > which takes ages, hibernate or not, and seeing how the hardware is > old, I prefer the regular checks made on disk by boot process. > I do not need computer as fast as light, but I'm pleased hen things > does not takes ages while keeping some security checks. I am still using a Pentium 133MHz machine with 112M ram and a 1G hard drive. It has the best power envelope for the task it is doing. I reboot it every time a new linux kernel security upgrade is installed. It is a pretty slow machine and takes a minute or two to reboot. I feel the reboot speed every time I reboot it. But that only happens every other month or so when Linux upgrades are released. > That's because I kept the use of shutdown instead of hibernate, > except if I have something I want to keep alive from a session to > another. > But, of course, if boot speed is not an issue for you, you are free > to make it slower :) I will say that turnabout this-for-that applies here. :-) It is your choice to shutdown your eee pc completely. Instead you could suspend it and have fast resume performance. It is your choice to use a full shutdown and have slow performance. :-) > Every user have his own requirement for a computer, especially for > people using a linux distribution I think. I definitely believe that there is never one size fits all. I try to support people doing a variety of things that I would never personally do. But that does not mean that simply because someone can do something that it is a good thing to do it. But let's not get too from from the topic point under discussion. The point I was refuting was this one: > > berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote: > > > The immediate problem to change the symlink to bash instead of dash > > > is that it will slow down his system boot sequence, ... I strongly believe that it is not an "immediate problem". Classifying it as a problem is much too strong. That is where I objected. Yes there is a measurable difference in boot speed. But it isn't more than a few seconds. (I would love it if someone would remind us of the boot timings with a reference to benchmark data.) But I disagree that changing a symlink from dash to bash causes an "immediate problem". Nor even a minor problem. It is the way Debian systems were released and shipped for years and years. The change is an improvement. But the reversion of that change is not a bug. The biggest improvement in my mind is not even the performance difference. It is the portability gained. By writing scripts suitable for POSIX /bin/sh those scripts are much more likely to run unchanged on every system and not just the one it is written on. Having worked on many systems over many years I value clean portability more than performance. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature