SystemD

Systemd is generally considered to be more efficient, allows parallel operations, has fewer dependencies, allows for service prioritization and precedence, and reduces start up time.

Suck it SysVinit cucks

i'm not a fan of the developers but it isn't botnet and it werks

Agreed, but it doesn't have decades of use in industry with the corresponding number of knowledgeable sysadmin professionals. Maybe it will be ready for the big leagues in 2030.

>more efficient
wrong
>parrallel operations
openrc can run in parallel mode
>fewer dependencies
absolutely wrong
>service prioritization and precedence
pretty sure sysv can do that
>reduces start up time
keep telling yourself that

>it will be ready for the big leagues in 2030.

:D

I mean it's not like it's an insanely complicated system that's difficult to manage

>openrc
that's the thing though. Systemd shills always ignore options such as this. To them, it's either systemd or SysVinit. Other alternatives don't exist.

It's a common Poettering tactic. Choose the one option to compare your shit to that make it look most favorable, and disregard anything else. It's like when he used OSS as a comparison to his PulseAudio, even though OSS had been depreciated for fucking years.

Found the CentOS 4 admin

found the redhat employee

>CentOS 4 admin
Interesing assumption about him.. I don't believe CentOS 4 had OpenRC though, and systemd didn't get added until 7, so maybe that assumption was false.

This thread is about actual systems administration not your home ricebox

Actually you might be surprised to find that there are some relatively large enterprises out there still utilizing CentOS of this generation. Why couldn't you just script your boot process into OpenRC on a CentOS 4 system though? I mean it's independent of the Kernel isn't it?

Debian sysvinit had used a parallel, dependency based scheme for longer than sysd had been around. Fewer dependencies is arguable.

> has fewer dependencies
Debatable.
What is clear though is that systemD CREATES dependencies everywhere and tries to creep into other software like cancer to prohibit future (better) alternatives.

interesting thanks I didn't know that

can you give an example of how it creeps into other software to prohibit alternatives?

Not him but off the top of my head gnome 3 depends on sysd.

Well, I mean in the same way it would depend on init.d thought right? What's the difference?

specifically on logind

>sysvinit shilling with buzzwords, 0 proofs and reddit cuck maymay
>facebook image

pöttery

before systemd became a hard dependency, you could substitute any init system you wanted - sysv, BSD, runit, you name it. gnome only depended on the init system insofar as requiring a working operating system

poettering

SYSTEMD IS FUCKSHIT

DELET

oooh yeah this sysmemed is soo good! Look at it eating up CPU resources for no fucking reason!

>systemd

I don't have this problem.

Don't worry because by then systemd will include a microwave, chromium, JS service scripting and all the backdoors intruders could wish for.

wow this guy

>kodi.bin

WHAT?
WHO ARE YOU QUOTING?

>more efficient
Vague as fuck. You can say that about anything:
>Notepad.exe is more efficient than Vim because it takes less memory.

>allows parallel operations
What is this supposed to mean? Parallel operations? Like multi threading?

>has fewer dependencies
No.

>allows for service prioritization and precedence
OpenRC can do that too.


>reduces start up time
Uptime: 13 days, 2 hours, 57 mins
Does anyone care that SystemD, in some cases, takes 4 seconds off your boot time?

jesus I hate hin

>Enterprises
>Changing something when it works

lol please explain user what it is systemd-journald

w2c

How can people be this retarded?

Same could be asked of people that unironically believe Alex Jones's bullshit.