Le 05.07.2014 20:50, Bzzzz a écrit :
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 14:25:57 -0400 Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:My plan is to switch to systemd, see how I like it, and if I don't, install the old boot system, or if that can no longer be done, switch distros. I don't see systemd as the end of the world. *But*, I think a discussion of a plan B is very ontopic, because if the conversion to systemd turns out to be even 1/10 the fiasco that the kmail to kmail2 change was, we all need a systemd alternative, and a plan to make that switch.I just made a re-installation on my last laptop and it installed by itself when upgrading to sid. AFAICS, it is really fast; now, we'll see what problem will be raised in the future… (hoping it won't turn to a frigging mess).
From what I know about systemd's behavior, and official documents I have read from it's authors, systemd was not meant to be faster to boot.
Plus, systemd will only be faster to boot if your system is bloated, which is quite common for gnome/kde users.
Let me explain that point.Systemd uses an on-demand strategy to boot services, so, something which is not needed will not be started at boot, only when it'll be needed by something. So, on a system like my personal desktops for which I try hard to keep them minimal but highly usable anyway, it's useless: only things I use are installed, and when I have some daemon that I know I use only rarely, I simply disable it: cups, graphical network manager (when I am in hotel them are useful, because I have no idea about how to configure a wlan when there is no wpa protection...) or even ssh or some ftp servers.
Ok, now it should be clear why the faster boot is achievable on computers. Now, the question I would like to ask is: does not it feels like a false speed? We all know about the windows' DE which is unusable for a random period of time after login, won't systemd's on demand strategy expose people to the same issue? I think it might, but do not mind: it won't happen to me and people like me. Quite selfish, you'll think? Not really: I will be happy to teach other my way, which will probably make other's systems faster and better autonomy on batteries.
Now, for servers, it have an interest. A server only boots once in a while, for example after a failure, or an upgrade. Systemd will probably reduce the out of order time of servers. If, of course, you have more than one service per server, but I do not feel like it is the common way nowadays: visualization thing sounds like encouraging to have one system per service, so the on-demand thing sounds useless for me there too.
The true advantages I can see of systemd, because I think it have some even if I do not like various ideas behind it are:
* easier to maintain configuration. Damn easier, I can say it, as a beginner in Linux systems (You probably know that here now, since I'm on this list since some times: I say lot of wrong things, but I always try --and hopefully often am-- to be helpful.)
* dependency based (yes, I know that it is doable by other systems)* parallel startup (but, as for my opinion about minimal systems, I'm not sure it's really useful. Plus the fact it can also be done by scripts, but in a less readable way imho)
My conclusion: the systemd approach have some interesting points, and is an alternative to classic systems, but I would be very sad if no proper alternative subsists. If there is really no alternative, I'll probably take the opportunity to switch on a different kernel, which does not support it and do not intend to.