SystemD is blamed for long boot times and being heavy and bloated on resources. I tried OpenRC and Runit on real hardware (Ryzen 5000-series laptop) for week each and saw only 1 second faster boot time.
I’m old enough to remember plymouth.service (graphical image) being the most slowest service on boot in Ubuntu 16.04 and 18.04. But I don’t see that as an issue anymore. I don’t have a graphical systemD boot on my Arch but I installed Fedora Sericea and it actually boots faster than my Arch despite the plymouth (or whatever they call it nowadays).
My 2 questions:
- Is the current SystemD rant derived from years ago (while they’ve improved a lot)?
- Should Linux community rant about bigger problems such as Wayland related things not ready for current needs of normies?
This is the first top-level comment that hints at the main criticism against systemd. systemd is increasingly difficult to replace as time goes on. I like and use systemd because it has a fast boot, but I wish the project was developed in a more modular way that had choice built-in. It is instead developed as the way that everyone should systemd instead of alternatives. This philosophy gets in the way of distributions that want to provide alternatives (Devuan, Gentoo, Parabola, etc.). Some of the sysadmins I work with closely use Devuan and follow development. I hear the patch set around bypassing systemd grows in size and complexity each year which is worrisome for choice.