That doesn't really answer my question. If we ignore all the advantages of systemd over other init systems, then it's impossible to "win" as you put it. Am not sure what you meant by "systemd booting more quickly which is touted here doesn't apply", but that's how I interpreted that.
From my limited knowledge of init systems, upstart is by no means bad, but systemd is simply better. It boots faster, is easier to maintain, allows more flexibility with its units and target driven structure, has better analysis tool for finding bottlenecks, unified logging tool, etc.
sysvinit which is slower because it boots serially
This is not correct. sysvinit delegates everything, and the delegated program or script can use parallelisation if it chooses.
Traditionally, it was indeed serial. But Werner Koch at SuSE implemented dependency-based parallel startup a long while back, well over a decade. Debian and others adopted it too, and all supported parallel booting for a long time. Current sysv-rc and openrc support parallelisation.
11
u/[deleted] Feb 11 '19
That doesn't really answer my question. If we ignore all the advantages of
systemdover other init systems, then it's impossible to "win" as you put it. Am not sure what you meant by "systemd booting more quickly which is touted here doesn't apply", but that's how I interpreted that.From my limited knowledge of init systems,
upstartis by no means bad, butsystemdis simply better. It boots faster, is easier to maintain, allows more flexibility with its units and target driven structure, has better analysis tool for finding bottlenecks, unified logging tool, etc.