Long startup due to hardcoded if-up apt-get update

[Valtam]

Sure, here's my output. Is there anything suspicious in it? - Define suspicious?

People post 'fixes' here. But that doesn't automatically translate to one size fits all. I have the /etc/network/if-up.d/update file and my boot times are not adversely affected by it. The other contributors here have also not reported a problem. As an OS provider, one must tread extremely carefully and usually only 'fix' things that affect the majority of people, and only then, with no foreseeable adverse affects. I can predict with more certainty how a necessary bug fix will affect everyone, but with this, I don't like to play 'trial and error' with 1000's of computers. There's a balance to consider. Interesting thread nonetheless. Thank you.

[rew]

People post 'fixes' here. But that doesn't automatically translate to one size fits all. I have the /etc/network/if-up.d/update file and my boot times are not adversely affected by it. The other contributors here have also not reported a problem. As an OS provider, one must tread extremely carefully and usually only 'fix' things that affect the majority of people, and only then, with no foreseeable adverse affects. I can predict with more certainty how a necessary bug fix will affect everyone, but with this, I don't like to play 'trial and error' with 1000's of computers. There's a balance to consider. Interesting thread nonetheless. Thank you.

Thanks for your explanation. To me it's important that the maintainers of linuxliteos are aware of this problem. How you react to it, remains indeed your responsibility.

---

I have now tested that bug also on my somewhat newer and stronger machine.

Code:

neofetch
          ,xXc       rew@studlin460s
      .l0MMMMMO      ---------------
   .kNMMMMMWMMMN,    OS: Linux Lite 6.2 x86_64
   KMMMMMMKMMMMMMo   Host: 20FAS54D00 ThinkPad T460s
  'MMMMMMNKMMMMMM:   Kernel: 5.15.0-56-generic
  kMMMMMMOMMMMMMO    Uptime: 11 mins
.MMMMMMX0MMMMMW.    Packages: 2401 (dpkg)
oMMMMMMxWMMMMM:     Shell: bash 5.1.16
WMMMMMNkMMMMMO      Resolution: 2560x1440
:MMMMMMOXMMMMW       DE: Xfce
.0MMMMMxMMMMM;       WM: Xfwm4
:;cKMMWxMMMMO        WM Theme: Materia
'MMWMMXOMMMMl        Theme: Materia [GTK2/3]
kMMMMKOMMMMMX:      Icons: Papirus-Adapta [GTK2], Adwaita [GTK3]
.WMMMMKOWMMM0c      Terminal: xfce4-terminal
  lMMMMMWO0MNd:'     Terminal Font: Droid Sans Mono 12
   oollXMKXoxl;.     CPU: Intel i7-6600U (4) @ 3.400GHz
     ':. .: .'       GPU: Intel Skylake GT2 [HD Graphics 520]
              ..     Memory: 1615MiB / 19739MiB

Turns out that I face severe boot issues also there ... around 10 secs.
Which doesn't really astonish me, it was clear that it is a network issue ... provoked by the 'apt update' enforcement.

I share my data and let you make your wise choices.
The attachments and measurements:
blame =

Code:

systemd-analyze blame

networking-services =

Code:

journalctl -u networking.service -b

plot =

Code:

system-analyze plot

- before the fix: Startup finished in 14.112s (firmware) + 20.537s (loader) + 4.202s (kernel) + 14.398s (userspace) = 53.250s graphical.target reached after 14.374s in userspace
- after the fix: Startup finished in 8.840s (firmware) + 19.691s (loader) + 4.185s (kernel) + 9.536s (userspace) = 42.254s graphical.target reached after 9.529s in userspace

... we clearly see that I have problem on boot to reach the update sites. See journalctl output. This is not issue at real runtime. I don't mind however ... chmod -x update and I have a blazing fast liteos.

users voice
To share my view, I was experimenting with other distros despite my preference for linuxliteos, as I was frustrated with the latest boot performance. And I almost left you guys, wouldn't I have found this cause for the severe boot problem ... so I now stay with the distro. If other users make the same choices, the price for this 'apt update' may be much bigger than you think.
I saw other threads that report slow boot ... around networking.service ... I assume they suffer from the same effect.
Someone delete my post to help these users, thats ok, your business. But with this we never get more data whether more users are affected.