Am 20.09.2014 um 16:08 schrieb Mark David Dumlao: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Alec Ten Harmsel > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On 09/17/2014 10:40 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: > > > Fact is if it's _you_ that seems to give a tweet about systemd > speed, > > so it's on _you_ to measure it, I don't really care what you > think. The > > fact that you think pid1's speed or resource usage might be a > big deal > > is very indicative on how badly informed you are in the first place. > > I don't care about systemd speed. I really am completely ambivalent > about PID1; I've run Upstart, I've run systemd, I've run OpenRC, and > they all work fine. All I'm saying is that a common point in the > systemd > community seems to be its awesome performance (unless I'm reading the > wrong documentation and conversations), and burden of proof is on the > party making the claim. > > > The thing is, that's a strawman. Volker is outright delusional about > systemd people breaking into his threads and forcefeeding him Lennart > facts like "systemd is faster". It's the exact opposite. Every time a > systemd thread comes up, here come the anti-fanboys whining about > "well why should _i_ use it? because it's _faster_?" as if we gave a > crap that he did.
I am deluded? Who again posted systemd propaganda again? > > The burden of proof is on the party making the claim, but almost > nobody is making the claim -to him-. No, just on public mailing lists and fora. True, speed is not a factor. Except if you claim it is. > The fact that he thinks systemd's speed is important already betrays > how biased and narrow his thinking is on the topic. Most people don't > even bother with bootup speeds that cut a few seconds off. Heck I > tried to tweak my boot process with systemd and I had a hard time > getting _even_ with Ubuntu. so the systemd-fanbois that always masturbate about how systemd is so much faster than anything else are actually lying? Interesting. If those systemd-fanbois wouldn't talk about how-fast-their-toy-is, I wouldn't care about it. I only boot to replace kernels. I don't care about boot time, as long as it stays under 5 minutes. > Generally we care more about the fact that services have actual > dependencies, are written declaratively, can be executed exactly as > upstream recommends, don't have magic code hacks, are automatically > cgrouped and thus have all child processes guaranteed killed on > service down, that logs and STDOUT are tracked and searchable in the > journal, etc etc etc. Every single one of those matters more than > bootup speed, but yeah, we heard somewhere that you can tweak parallel > boots to be faster or something. and if your system breaks and systemd stops working - how do you easily access those logs? Just a question. With other logging solutions it is easy: cat, less tail... etc. > > Point is he's trying to paint the picture that systemd folks rattle on > and on about its speed, but they don't. except when they do.
