• GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It does have disadvantages. The only real advantage of it is the completeness of system administration tools. Since they aren’t that much needed on a phone and the performance of that class of devices is not groundbreaking, using another init system is a good idea. Though it depends on what the specific user wants of course. As long as there is a way to change the init system, it shouldn’t be a problem

          • xcjs@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Systemd was created to allow parallel initialization, which other init systems lacked. If you want proof that one processor core is slower than one + n, you don’t need to compare init systems to do that.

            • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I’ve never heard of that. I only heard that other init systems usually have better performance. And well even if it’s not the case, security is another massive concern

              • xcjs@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                I mean, sysvinit was just a bunch of root-executed bash scripts. I’m not sure if systemd is really much worse.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      Systemd is the standard for a reason.

      1. bad build process
      2. ignoring best practice
      3. RedHat forcing it on the planet
      4. people forgetting that every deliverable of systemd is a lie.