SystemD is blamed for long boot times and being heavy and bloated on resources. I tried OpenRC and Runit on real hardware (Ryzen 5000-series laptop) for week each and saw only 1 second faster boot time.
I’m old enough to remember plymouth.service (graphical image) being the most slowest service on boot in Ubuntu 16.04 and 18.04. But I don’t see that as an issue anymore. I don’t have a graphical systemD boot on my Arch but I installed Fedora Sericea and it actually boots faster than my Arch despite the plymouth (or whatever they call it nowadays).
My 2 questions:
- Is the current SystemD rant derived from years ago (while they’ve improved a lot)?
- Should Linux community rant about bigger problems such as Wayland related things not ready for current needs of normies?
I’ll never understand people who want the old init systems back. Before systemd, the common init systems on Linux more or less just ran shell scripts called “init scripts” you dropped in a directory. It was an under-engineered solution that led to people solving the same problems repeatedly with varying (usually poor) results. It was common to see things like wrappers to restart crashed daemons and every daemon needing some sort of forking or sub-process complexity so you could start as root and then drop to a lower-privileged user.
There are other modern init systems aside from systemd, and maybe there’s an argument to be made that one of them is better. I don’t really know. But nobody who ever had to get real intimate with the old init systems should want that back.