> Hi, > > Am 23.07.2012 17:29, schrieb Kevin Chadwick: > > Tested, simply sophisticated and as fast as you make it. > > There is no parallelization, no socket activation and no auto mounting. > In no way can it be as fast as systemd. > init=/bin/sh That happens a lot in embedded. > > Once you get to desktop level and SSDs, who cares about a few seconds. > > It's not only about speed, but speed is a nice bonus. Its also about > reliability. But I'm not going to enumerate the advantages of systemd > over and over again. Just read the blog posts by Lennart ;). > That is completely debateable. I hope you look at counter arguments too. I like what systemd does in code in the main. I just think it needs a re-design to be more usable on the commandline and be more modular so pid1 is small if it cannot stay as init. > > The fastest booting systems (< 1 second) use init and won't use systemd. > > Which systems do you have in mind? Personally I can tell you out of > experience that my system boots up faster with systemd. > Low memory embedded devices such as an mp3 player. I would also rather desktop and embedded systems shared pid1 as a simple init like upstart does. > > WRT pulse audio it won't run under a grsecurity kernel so first > > I'd say define modern desktop. How functional, how secure. > > On a "modern desktop" you probably have bigger concerns regarding > security then running grsecurity. That said it should run fine with > SElinux, which Fedora is using by default. Furthermore grsecurity seems > to focus on servers anyway, so I'm not sure why you even bring this up? > Not really, it is used less on desktops because more code like Adobe Flash breaks without intervention. My Arch desktops run grsecurity kernels. > Best regards, > Karol Babioch > -- ________________________________________________________ Why not do something good every day and install BOINC. ________________________________________________________
