Perhaps because I don't use DEs my PCs boot up quickly, and servers aren't supposed to be rebooted outside their maintenance windows. So why would I care about pArAlLeL bOoTiNg.

Oh well, I'm just an old man yelling at clouds.

[–] black0ut@pawb.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The thing about parallel booting is it's only faster in systems with lots of cores, and the overhead of the parallelized code is sometimes enough to negate the benefits in older processors.

My machine is a Core 2 Duo lappy, which allows me to run most modern programs cheaply. However, it's slow (even though I don't use DEs either), and laptops are the kinds of computers you boot multiple times a day. That's why I care about boot times. And in this case, you can see that booting with a parallelized init system is slower than booting with a "regular" one.

Yeah, Systemd might be the new fad, but I still believe there are lots of things to learn from the simple init systems. After all, an init system should only focus on initializing a system, and it shouldn't be as complex and complicated as Systemd is.

I might be just another old man yelling at clouds. But hey, that makes two of us now.

[–] msage@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah, I get you.

Though perhaps in such use-case it would do better with sleep states than poweroffs.