> 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.
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
> > 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
> Best regards,
> Karol Babioch
Why not do something good every day and install BOINC.