And yet there are users claiming to use "non-bloated" desktop environments because they take less time to start . I agree that too much of the conversation revolves around boot time though. I use it because of the nice tooling. I know everyone doesn't like it, but I find it nicer to have a set of sanely named basic tools with a consistent interface than a hodgepodge of separate ones with imaginative names, configuration conventions, documentation and command line switches. Of course if one is already grown accustomed to some set of tools it's hard to let go, but if you can it may turn out for the better in the long run. Anyway, let's not turn this into yet another a systemd thread. If someone insists on having a say, let's move to one of the pre-existing ones.Depends. On my desktop, systemd takes about three times as long to boot as compared to sysvinit. On a friends laptop running ubuntu, systemd is slower than upstart. But supposidely, it's quicker for some. I consider boot times a stupid argument for one or the other, computers today are so fast anyway that nobody cares.
For servers yeah, but for anything else I tend to keep them in the lowest energy consumption state convenient whenever they're not in use. Keeping, say, a desktop computer on at night just for the uptime doesn't come off as practical, at least. I boot once or twice per day, typically, depending on the upgrades available.Am I the only person who remembers when months long uptime was a badge of honor? How often are you people rebooting that it's a design consideration.