Boot up time thread

>>56973486
Why though?

>>56973440

Startup finished in 3.753s (kernel) + 10.453s (userspace) = 14.206s

Meaninless because it counts the time spent entering my password: "[email protected] (9.555s)"

Startup finished in 6.820s (kernel) + 21.341s (userspace) = 28.162s

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-07 21:19:38.png (193KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1280x800px

>>56973440

File: 1435527442279.jpg (14KB, 297x331px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 297x331px

>>56973855
>font size

Startup finished in 9.882s (kernel) + 3min 1.964s (userspace) = 3min 11.847s

File: 959e6b5c2e548333bc09fe0aa686a287.jpg (39KB, 500x641px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x641px

>>56973855
Seamonkey rice / theme please?
Trying to make seamonkey not feel like netscape.

>>56974179
OP here, I liked the gnome/freedesktop (revised) theme, allows it to integrate with system icon theme

>>56973440

Startup finished in 4.524s (kernel) + 1.533s (userspace) = 6.057s

>>56973440
>>56973701
>>56974113
HOW?! Am I not ricing my systemd enough?
Startup finished in 2.327s (kernel) + 8.013s (userspace) = 10.340s

>>56973940
I have vision problems, faggot.

>>56973440
Startup finished in 5.269s (kernel) + 39.409s (userspace) = 44.679s

what's the macOS equivalent?

i use runit-init with an i3-5020u and an hdd. i could use bootchart2 but that is shittier than systemd-analyze, so i just counted with a stop watch and my total including kernel and my custom init scripts is 9 seconds. take that faggots, on a fucking HDD and a pleb i3-5020u.

File: serveimage.webm (2KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 150x150px

>>56973440
>

 systemd-analyze

 bash: systemd-analyze: command not found

Windows has started up:
Boot Duration : 18687ms
IsDegradation : false
Incident Time (UTC) : 2016-10-08T02:26:25.612660800Z

My computer is 10 years old, you people have shit hardware.

Startup finished in 3.765s (kernel) + 3.010s (userspace) = 6.776s

I am on Xubuntu 14.04. What utility would I use to measure boot time?

18 seconds from cold boot to desktop on my X201 with an older intel SSD. Most of this time is the BIOS. OS boot time is about 5 seconds, 4 seconds if you take out my time putting in the password.

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-07 21-30-06.png (176KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1366x768px

what does this shit mean? what the fuck is systemd?

>>56975839
>what the fuck is systemd?
How new to linux are you...?

Systemd is one of the biggest complaints about most linux distros.

Not that systemV or BSD are particularly better than the systemd init.

>>56975796

>download ubuntu
>ok initiallly
>download and install new DE
>video screen tears and whole system becomes buggy
>spend hours on trying to fix it
>say fuck this
>install fedora instead

good feels

>>56973440

systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 3.429s (kernel) + 25.629s (userspace) = 29.058s

>>56975888

i came back after a long time of not using linux. i've been using windows 8.1. i just got another computer for the purpose of using linux

>>56975718
A lot of it depends on what you have in your kernel and what things you have running on startup that can slow things down.

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-07 21-45-29.png (619KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1366x768px

>>56975942

hello fellow 1366x768 resolution user

Startup finished in 5min 38.731s (kernel) + 11.605s (userspace) = 5min 50.336s

hhhhmmm

I rarely reboot so idgaf

Startup finished in 8.534s (kernel) + 34.575s (userspace) = 43.110s

Wow, you guys have shit hardware

Startup finished in 2.616s (kernel) + 2.990s (userspace) = 5.606s

> Ubuntu 16.04 on a laptop

Startup finished in 4.523s (kernel) + 22.943s (userspace) = 27.466s

I like my bloat

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-08 03-00-31.png (18KB, 731x462px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 731x462px

Fedora on my T420. I have / on my SSD but /home on my 250GB hard drive caddy.

File: putty_2016-10-07_23-12-30.png (9KB, 661x418px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 661x418px

>>56973440

Used to be ~5 seconds. 3.513s for storage.mount and 2.550s for tlp-sleep.service seem to be the burden lately.

Startup finished in 4.929s (kernel) + 5.163s (userspace) = 10.092s

>>56975942
>>56975964
>posting a screenfetch
>>>/wg/

File: desktop-7.27.16.jpg (2MB, 5120x2800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5120x2800px

>>56973440

Startup finished in 1.524s (kernel) + 1.144s (userspace) = 2.669s

>>56976745
>>/wg/

x200 core2duo with an ssd!
you people really need to step it up

Startup finished in 2.778s (kernel) + 3.156s (userspace) = 5.934s

>>56976847
My x200 is at 1.846s kernel, 2.591s userspace, 4.438s total.

Is yours librebooted? Libreboot is ~ 3x as fast as the stock BIOS for me.

Startup finished in 8.909s (kernel) + 2min 51.825s (userspace) = 3min 735ms

12 year old laptop and 8 year old HDD can't be beat!

Startup finished in 11.696s (firmware) + 5.815s (loader) + 6.108s (kernel) + 32.001s (userspace) = 55.622s

I have my OS on a USB HDD and I should feel horrible

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-08 03-12-47.png (70KB, 769x401px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 769x401px

i have no idea what any of this means

>>56977133
It means that you booted up in 1 minute and 16 seconds

File: Spectacle.J16826.png (50KB, 722x528px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 722x528px

>>56977133
You cannot possible know what this means then

File: 7bf8f997fa843ee32737ddccdb83ab3a1c90962435ceb6bd079ae46f0b343369.png (1MB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x800px

>>56977156
somewhat, but not really. no.

>>56976128
>2016
>using ubuntu
how does it feel to know arch users are cooler than you?

File: truth.png (282KB, 1511x618px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1511x618px

>>56973855
>>56975839
>>56975964
>>56976745

>>56977187
>arch users
>cool
>have systemd

what is the difference between using ubuntu and arch again?

Startup finished in 5.150s (kernel) + 12.425s (userspace) = 17.575s

Critical chain

graphical.target @3.798s
└─lightdm.service @3.307s +491ms
  └─systemd-user-sessions.service @2.799s +82ms
    └─basic.target @2.382s
      └─sockets.target @2.382s
        └─snapd.socket @2.376s +4ms
          └─sysinit.target @2.359s
            └─swap.target @2.359s
              └─dev-disk-by\x2duuid-abd3ab34\x2d0093\x2d4070\x2d9f15\x2d54de5e9315b8.swap @2.345s +13ms
                └─dev-disk-by\x2duuid-abd3ab34\x2d0093\x2d4070\x2d9f15\x2d54de5e9315b8.device @2.328s

Startup finished in 4.729s (kernel) + 2.030s (userspace) = 6.760s

KDE5

Startup finished in 1.577s (kernel) + 2.212s (userspace) = 3.789s

Startup finished in 3.270s (kernel) + 41.180s (userspace) = 44.451s

Feels bad man

>>56977822
>what is the difference between using ubuntu and arch again?

Ubuntu is way more stable.

>>56978075
lmao I remember newfags rambling about xorg-gtk drop down menus bug in Arch. Debibabbies and ubuntufags thought their special OS is bug proof

Finally after when ubuntu got to this bug and released 16.04 Archfags were laughing their ass off.


Protip: Canonical isn't going to fix your bugs

File: scrot6.png (628KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1366x768px

>>56973440
How did you get the shadows to show up like this ?
Looks like a MacOS screenshot

>>56975942
Im happy im not the only one to name my thinkpad dankpad

File: Spectacle.M23205.png (55KB, 816x592px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 816x592px

>>56978118
Just a KDE master race thing I guess

>>56978134
So what do you use to get a screenshot ? The plain KDE default screenshot tool ?
I guess Kwin can support these types of screenshots, they're beautiful.

>>56978150
Spectacle. Gnone-screenshot can take them as well, but the shadow is very small

File: Screenshot_20161008_115157.png (114KB, 643x292px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 643x292px

>>56978155
Oh yeah I see.
So that's the Spectacle that adds the shadow, seems like it doesn't like compton.
Shadows are not the same as on-screen, but that's fine.
I should write a script that automatically adds a shadow the same size as the compositor displays.
Anyway, thanks for showing me this tool.

>>56978189
Fuck, actually there are no shadows, my bad.
The file picker showed as if there were some.

>>56978134

> VirtualBox

Why?

>>56978228
Word and photoshop.

I'm too lazy for WINE

>>56978274

But KVM!

>>56978296
Doesn't have seamless mode