351
submitted 6 months ago by petsoi@discuss.tchncs.de to c/linux@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ad_on_is@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago

The project is in an too early phase to debate over SystemD. Can you guys please hold back with these arguments until pmOS reaches at least 4% market share.

[-] leopold@lemmy.kde.social 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

There is no minimum market share threshold to discuss the way the software you use is being developed and PostmarketOS will not reach 4% in the foreseeable future (and it probably never will). Desktop Linux only just reached that threshold after decades of work and systemd arguments have been happening for years regardless. The conditions for mobile Linux are considerably less favorable. If we can't discuss systemd until 4% is reached, we can't discuss systemd ever. Which is fair, because the systemd horse has already been beaten to death at this point. But not because it hasn't reached some arbitrary 4% threshold. That makes no sense.

[-] Vincent@feddit.nl 11 points 6 months ago

If we can't discuss systemd until 4% is reached, we can't discuss systemd ever. Which is fair, because the systemd horse has already been beaten to death at this point.

Exactly :)

[-] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago

Well you're right but the more postmarketOS grows, the harder it is to switch to another init system

[-] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 6 months ago

They are giving options, no one is forced anything. People should complain upstream at init systems and ~~desktop~~mobile environments.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 16 points 6 months ago

Why would you want to. Systemd is the standard for a reason.

[-] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago

It does have disadvantages. The only real advantage of it is the completeness of system administration tools. Since they aren't that much needed on a phone and the performance of that class of devices is not groundbreaking, using another init system is a good idea. Though it depends on what the specific user wants of course. As long as there is a way to change the init system, it shouldn't be a problem

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 8 points 6 months ago

Another init will be slower and will require much more time and resources though.

[-] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago

Don't believe. Do you have any proof of that?

[-] xcjs@programming.dev 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Systemd was created to allow parallel initialization, which other init systems lacked. If you want proof that one processor core is slower than one + n, you don't need to compare init systems to do that.

[-] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I've never heard of that. I only heard that other init systems usually have better performance. And well even if it's not the case, security is another massive concern

[-] xcjs@programming.dev 4 points 6 months ago

I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I'm not sure if systemd is really much worse.

[-] narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
351 points (97.6% liked)

Linux

47284 readers
709 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS