• adONis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      10 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 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 :)

      • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        10 months ago

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

        • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 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

              • xcjs@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    10 months ago

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

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          10 months ago

          Systemd is the standard for a reason.

          1. bad build process
          2. ignoring best practice
          3. RedHat forcing it on the planet
          4. people forgetting that every deliverable of systemd is a lie.