• black0ut@pawb.social
        0·
        1 year ago

        I run Void with runit.

        I’ve tried to completely avoid systemd, and so far I think I’ve managed. It’s still a pain in the ass, because a lot of software depends on it.

        As an upside, startup time on my old lappy went from 2+ minutes on barebones Arch with systemd to just under 40 seconds on Void with runit.

        • msage@programming.dev
          0·
          1 year ago

          I don’t even care about the boot times.

          Perhaps because I don’t use DEs my PCs boot up quickly, and servers aren’t supposed to be rebooted outside their maintenance windows. So why would I care about pArAlLeL bOoTiNg.

          Oh well, I’m just an old man yelling at clouds.

          • black0ut@pawb.social
            1·
            1 year ago

            The thing about parallel booting is it’s only faster in systems with lots of cores, and the overhead of the parallelized code is sometimes enough to negate the benefits in older processors.

            My machine is a Core 2 Duo lappy, which allows me to run most modern programs cheaply. However, it’s slow (even though I don’t use DEs either), and laptops are the kinds of computers you boot multiple times a day. That’s why I care about boot times. And in this case, you can see that booting with a parallelized init system is slower than booting with a “regular” one.

            Yeah, Systemd might be the new fad, but I still believe there are lots of things to learn from the simple init systems. After all, an init system should only focus on initializing a system, and it shouldn’t be as complex and complicated as Systemd is.

            I might be just another old man yelling at clouds. But hey, that makes two of us now.