Same could be said about other distros, btw ;)

  • MoonlightFox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I know we should not objectify people, and I rarely do.

    That said… As a heterosexual man I got to say that this is one of the first times I have truly seen how handsome Elvis was. God damn.

  • einkorn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    2 days ago

    IMHO Debian and Ubuntu should be swapped: swapped:

    Debian as the serious guy, that’s doing the hard work under the hood while the flashy Ubuntu gets the credit for being popular.

        • Shareni@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          2 days ago

          Let’s ignore all the anti-consumer bs (like selling user data to Amazon) and just focus on snaps.

          • each snap installed slows down your boot time
          • snaps get installed even when you don’t expect them to (apt get install firefox for example)
          • snap store is closed source
          • ikt@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 days ago

            each snap installed slows down your boot time

            How so? How much impact are we talking? First I’ve heard of this

            • Shareni@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              It needs to mount virtual directories for each snap. If I remember correctly it does a part of the job on boot and part on login.

              • ikt@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Not really noticed it tbh:

                1.951s snapd.seeded.service

                1.673s snapd.service

                Seems to be a lot longer than the mounts themselves but even then pretty minimal impact:

                $ systemd-analyze blame | grep snap | grep mount
                   86ms snap-bare-5.mount
                   85ms snap-blanket-49.mount
                   84ms snap-btop-813.mount
                   83ms snap-btop-814.mount
                   82ms snap-chromium-3010.mount
                   82ms snap-chromium-3025.mount
                   80ms snap-core18-2829.mount
                   79ms snap-core18-2846.mount
                   78ms snap-core20-2379.mount
                   77ms snap-core20-2434.mount
                   76ms snap-core22-1663.mount
                   76ms snap-core22-1722.mount
                   75ms snap-core24-609.mount
                   74ms snap-core24-716.mount
                   73ms snap-cups-1067.mount
                   72ms snap-firefox-5600.mount
                   71ms snap-firefox-5647.mount
                   70ms snap-firmware\x2dupdater-127.mount
                   69ms snap-firmware\x2dupdater-147.mount
                   68ms snap-gnome\x2d3\x2d28\x2d1804-198.mount
                   67ms snap-gnome\x2d3\x2d38\x2d2004-140.mount
                   66ms snap-gnome\x2d3\x2d38\x2d2004-143.mount
                   65ms snap-gnome\x2d42\x2d2204-172.mount
                   64ms snap-gnome\x2d42\x2d2204-176.mount
                   63ms snap-gnome\x2d46\x2d2404-66.mount
                   62ms snap-gnome\x2d46\x2d2404-77.mount
                   61ms snap-gtk\x2dcommon\x2dthemes-1534.mount
                   60ms snap-gtk\x2dcommon\x2dthemes-1535.mount
                   59ms snap-libreoffice-330.mount
                   58ms snap-libreoffice-334.mount
                   57ms snap-mesa\x2d2404-143.mount
                   56ms snap-mesa\x2d2404-44.mount
                   55ms snap-nvtop-171.mount
                   54ms snap-pinta-33.mount
                   53ms snap-pinta-37.mount
                   52ms snap-snap\x2dstore-1244.mount
                   51ms snap-snap\x2dstore-1248.mount
                   50ms snap-snapd-23258.mount
                   49ms snap-snapd-23545.mount
                   48ms snap-snapd\x2ddesktop\x2dintegration-247.mount
                   47ms snap-snapd\x2ddesktop\x2dintegration-253.mount
                   46ms snap-surfshark-51.mount
                   44ms snap-telegram\x2ddesktop-6489.mount
                   43ms snap-transmission-100.mount
                   42ms snap-youtube\x2ddl-4630.mount
                   41ms snap-youtube\x2ddl-4806.mount
                   40ms var-snap-firefox-common-host\x2dhunspell.mount
                   24ms snap-telegram\x2ddesktop-6495.mount
                
                • lengau@midwest.social
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  17 hours ago

                  Also remember that systemd isn’t generally doing this in series, waiting for each unit before starting the next. It’s firing off a bunch of units and then continuing what it does. If it were measuring the actual time that a unit takes without including the fact that it’s waiting for resources that other units are using, it’s highly unlikely that bare, which is basically empty, would take longer than massive snaps like Firefox and the GNOME content snaps.

                  Theoretically with a huge number of snaps and slow enough storage media this could have a noticeable effect, but in practice that case is highly unlikely.