[guylhem]

That's at least the 3rd time I see that article posted here!!!! It's NOT exceptional or some special kind of wizardry. Even NetworkManager now does that.

If you have an old setup, you can get matching speeds with dhcpcd and the following options added to the bottom of debian /etc/dhcpcd.conf:

ipv6rs #ipv6ra_own #ipv4only noipv4ll noarp

The latest 2 options are the helpful ones for speed. The rest is for my IPv6 setup - can't remember if the Macs give you a dhcpv6 lease that fast.

Since it's bragging time, my debian+systemd thinkpad x60 laptop using coreboot want to say it resumes from suspend in about 1 second, and it boots its kernel in 0.7s and the userspace tools in 0.5s (add another second for X thanks to SNA, and another second for LXDE/conky/etc.)

What is the boot time for mac already?

EDIT: linux laptops properly resuming is still impressive for me as I remember a time not so long ago when one had to use some kernel patches, tweak the drivers or at least do a few rmmod, and even then a proper resume could take several seconds due to the drivers reinitializing.

Linux has come a long way since them. What might have been surprising before is now taken for granted (as it should be!).

EDIT2: I see downvotes. I guess some fanboy is quite sad that linux can do the same or better.

[TheSwordsman]

No, let's not kid ourselves. You're being downvoted for being a bit pompous.

[revisionzero]

More than just a 'bit'.

[frozenport]

>>Linux has come a long way since them.

In 2011 Linux distros could hibernate, today they can't :-)

[guiambros]

I simply can't get Ubuntu 14.04 to hibernate and resume reliably. 1 out of 10 times it's dead on resume. The culprit seems to be fglrx (as usual), but no decent solution other than to give up on AMD and go back to Nvidia (not gonna happen).

We've come a long way since the first Slackware, but Linux on the desktop is still a hot mess, particularly in terms of WM. I sincerely wish we had less options, and some of the "it just works" from Macs.

[JoshTriplett]

Personally, I posted this because Linux can now DHCP far faster, with both systemd-networkd and NetworkManager, and I thought people might find it interesting to read about some of the techniques used to speed up DHCP.

[vezzy-fnord]

You wrote this in a previous thread as well, but never responded to my comment then. I have no idea why you are hyping up networkd's DHCP client so much, given that it was established that a) its functionality is a small subset of dhcpcd and dhclient, b) dhcpcd could reach comparable speeds provided additional steps unsupported by networkd like ARP checking are disabled and c) networkd DHCP violates and/or sidesteps RFC guidelines.

[zanny]

On my machine (its a 4770k + Asus mobo) I boot to desktop on Arch + KDE before all my monitors power on.

[techrat]

My Chromebook turned xUbuntu system is already back online before the screen turns back on after opening the lid. All of the Macs we use in the studio are much slower than that.

[PhasmaFelis]

So (in this particular arena) Linux can, by Googling around and digging into conf files, match the speed that a Mac has out of the box? That's nice, but it's not exactly impressive. Why isn't it configured that way to start with?

(My personal machines are a Mac laptop, a Windows desktop, and a Linux server. I have no dog in this fight. I kind of don't understand why people think they do have a dog in this fight.)

[Tobu]

It's standard, Linux distributions generally install NetworkManager. The tweaks are for people who want more control or have less typical setups.

[digi_owl]

I guess MS have been slacking in their back room lock-in, or Linux have gotten better at faking Windows-isms in front ACPI etc.