5 seconds boot

[Framp]

yesterday i found a boot replacement for arch linux and i was amazed.. O_o

check this out:
http://translate.google.it/translate...2F&sl=it&tl=en
5 seconds from grub to x, on a common pc!

i think it's quite interesting and it would be cool if something similar got implemented in ubuntu

actually i was wondering why nobody have thought of it before..
i don't know a lot about boot implementations, but it looks like this guy have parallelized boot daemons in order to achieve speed.. and it's working!

just wanna to share this piece of information.. (hoping that ubuntu follows this direction )

bye

EDIT: that's better
http://translate.google.it/translate...2F&sl=it&tl=en

[Framp]

yawn, nobody cares

just wanna make somebody know

[gn2]

Boot times are pretty irrelevant unless you are someone who is extremely impatient.

[Pasdar]

Boot times are pretty irrelevant unless you are someone who is extremely impatient.

When I heard Shuttleworth say that they are again going to waste lots of their time on making Ubuntu Karmic boot faster than Jaunty, I thought OMG... these people have no idea what the correct priorities are.

Having a fast DE is a thousand times more important than a faster boot time. Many ATI users have a lag of 1-2 secs with everything when Compiz is enabled, it annoys the hell out of them. This is what makes/kills an OS, not how fast it can boot to the DE.

[DMcA]

actually, I believe quick boot times should be a priority, although not the only one of course. I don't see why modern computers should take so long to do relatively basic tasks. People don't write as efficient code as they used to

[Pasdar]

Boot up time should always be on their priority list, but whether it was a 1 sec boot up time or 20 seconds, will neither make or break Ubuntu. What will really make it is if Ubuntu cooperates with either GNOME or KDE and make their DEs better faster, less bugs, etc.

When normal users compare their experience of Ubuntu against, lets say VISTA. They rarely even mention the boot up time. They mention how fast programs opened and how easily they found/installed something, how well it worked out of the box, etc. That is, unless there is a dramatic difference in boot up time.

Jaunty boot up time is good as it is for now. They need to focus on the DE so when I run the packagae manager in GNOME, it doesn't take me 2+ secs to load, 3-4 seconds to check for updates, 4+ seconds to shut down the updater again. This is total B/S for any modern OS. If Windows ever released something like this for the price they're selling it, they would have lost a significant portion of their market.

[Hakimio]

Here some more articles for those interested in fast boot:
LPC: Booting Linux in five seconds
Linux boot in 3 seconds

[RATM_Owns]

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25159

[xnef1025]

I'd have to respectully disagree with boot times not being an important priority. More and more people are using their computers more like appliances, particularly their laptops/netbooks. They turn them off when they aren't using them and turn them on just to check if an email has come, print a document, or get one file. These users are quickly becoming the majority. Shaving boot time off of systems also would help businesses in general. Real world example: I work in a customer service call center. We have to be alotted 10 minutes of our day, everyday, for starting up our computers. That's probably around 3 calls going unanswered per rep. Multiply by a thousand employees, and you are talking a lot of calls kept holding everyday because the reps are busy waiting on the computers.

[Dr Small]

I have a very fast boot time (around 15 seconds), but I only ever reboot if there is a problem with the system (very rare, but it happens around every 100 days) or there is a loss of power.

Fast boot times are nice, but I don't reboot my system enough to worry about it. I would much rather have a slick system and a slow boot time that a fast boot time and a bloated/slow system.

Just my 2 cents.
Dr Small