<font face="courier new,monospace"><br></font><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Lars E. Pettersson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lars@homer.se" target="_blank">lars@homer.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 12/02/14 15:47, Paul W. Frields wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Well, to be frank, it was sold to solve the issue of start up time of<br>
computers.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
...<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This is incorrect. The actual problems systemd was meant to solve<br>
include but are not limited to:<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, it was sold to us, in the beginning, with the promise of faster boot time. I remember the often long and winding discussions on whether this materialized or not...<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>I unfortunately have to side with Lars (while also trying not to fuel the fire)<br>Because of this he-said/she-said discussion,<br>I dug up and read this reference/announcement for systemd.<br><br><a href="http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html">http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html</a><br><br>And from what I quickly read, it focuses on 'parallel' startup<br>(which I can see no other reason for, other than speeding boot time)<br>but on the other hand, although it talks about 'logging everything',<br>it didn't advertize or mention the binary approach that we now have<br>that many object to.<br><br></div></div><br>