OSNews

Maybe because some people, especially with some setups (ie. laptops and especially netbooks which are often shut down when not in use), would benefit from a quicker boot. Then there are the class of computer users/enthusiasts that look at it kind of like a car going from 0-60 (me, to an extent).

In my situation, I don't *have* to shut down often (ever, really--I'm on a standard machine with AC power). However, because I'm often trying out distributions and new versions of them, I reboot frequently, and therefore quick boot times are nice. For me, a 30-second boot time is decent, maybe even 35, but much more than that and I start getting impatient fast.

If they want to improve their boot times, why not... let them. It will improve new users' perception and first impression by being able to get into a fully-loaded, ready-to-use desktop in even less time. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. If you want a slower-booting, tried and tested distribution that focuses purely on stability, well... you know what to do. Keep using Debian or Slackware.

Meanwhile, assuming there are any major stability issues with speeding up the boot time, they will be fixed soon enough and then likely be picked up by the "stable" distributions eventually. Everyone wins.

Edited 2009-11-06 21:43 UTC