On 11 August 2012 19:14, Baho Utot <baho-utot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/11/2012 12:22 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> >> I would be surprised if a systemd-based system requires more resources >> than a sysvinit-based one, but that is of course something one would >> have to measure for each particular use-case. >> >> There are lots of systemd-based embedded systems cropping up (the >> embedded world seems more excited about sysntemd than the desktop >> world). The aim of systemd is to work on anything from embedded, via >> desktop to servers. >> >> -t > > > I am not looking at this from an systemd point of view. > My point is the constant bloat with software today. Theses bloated packages > will not fit/function on hand held devices. > Is it not more sensible to build small apps that do one or two things well > then bloated apps that try to do 25 things unwell? Systemd is broken into multiple small utilities (see eg. systemd-tools that are used by initscripts already) that does one thing, so it's not one big scary binary that does everything. In fact I believe* systemd is more suited for embedded devices than the current initscripts. Systemd is a bunch of small binaries that should be fast to execute in contrary to interpreting piles of bash scripts. Lukas * note that I'm saying this even though I don't like systemd very much (it's just my personal opinion, so don't try to argue with that) and I don't use it on any of my systems (nor I'm planning to in the near future).
