What init system do you use on MX, the default (sysVinit) or systemd?

[Roberto]

If it is necessary in Debian Buster to commit to an init system, then I very much hope that it will not be systemd. I have not been using distributions with systemd for years, and so far MX Linux was my first choice. I do not want an init system that, in my view, rejects UNIX's original approach and has become a monolithic, hard-to-overlook block, gaining in complexity without any noticeable advantage.
How mighty systemd has become meanwhile shows that it consists of more than 1.2 million lines of code. Just five years ago, it was 600,000 and in 2013, three years after the launch of systemd, just 200,000.

If MX Linux really decides to use systemd instead of sysVinit, would that be the all-important reason for me to switch to another systemdfree distribution for example Artix Linux.

I'd go with antiX first.

That was also my first consideration, but I find AntiX not as appealing as MX.

[beardedragon]

.

I'd go with antiX first.

That was also my first consideration, but I find AntiX not as appealing as MX.
[/quote]

You still can use xfce and you get choice of init. That is, if MX goes systemd.
BTW your username is familiar.

[manyroads]

[..]
That was also my first consideration, but I find AntiX not as appealing as MX.

If you follow the guide here, you can build an xfce version of antiX and see what you get... you might find it is not all that different, especially after I get done with building the step 2 version of the tutorial.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=50511

[Roberto]

.

I'd go with antiX first.

That was also my first consideration, but I find AntiX not as appealing as MX.

You still can use xfce and you get choice of init. That is, if MX goes systemd.
BTW your username is familiar.
[/quote]
I'll go inside and think about it all over again.
How do you know my Nick?

[Roberto]

[..]
That was also my first consideration, but I find AntiX not as appealing as MX.

If you follow the guide here, you can build an xfce version of antiX and see what you get... you might find it is not all that different, especially after I get done with building the step 2 version of the tutorial.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=50511

Thank you for the link. I will test it in a virtual machine. That could be a real alternative if MX switched to systemd.

[manyroads]

[..]
Thank you for the link. I will test it in a virtual machine. That could be a real alternative if MX switched to systemd.

All my testing is in VBox. I think the outcome may actually, ultimately, be an attractive light-weight option for people to consider. Not quite as robust as MX, but perhaps better for certain 'use-cases' like my grandson and podcasting platforms which run on older laptops 8-10 year old 64-bit. Given the VBox overhead, the base is idling at about 450MB of RAM with zero tuning. I have a platform built on antiX19 (more tuned that cruises at about 350MB, looks better, and has slightly different UI on it. e.g.; xcompmgr rather than xfwm.

Have fun! Do not despair!

[beardedragon]

.

I'd go with antiX first.

That was also my first consideration, but I find AntiX not as appealing as MX.

You still can use xfce and you get choice of init. That is, if MX goes systemd.
BTW your username is familiar.

I'll go inside and think about it all over again.
How do you know my Nick?
[/quote]

Did you once build a well known Ubuntu takeoff?
Are you R.J Dohnert?

[Roberto]

Did you once build a well known Ubuntu takeoff?
Are you R.J Dohnert?

I'm afraid I'm not R.J Dohnert. I'm a German user and my first name is Robert.

[manyroads]

Did you once build a well known Ubuntu takeoff?
Are you R.J Dohnert?

I'm afraid I'm not R.J Dohnert. I'm a German user and my first name is Robert.

Also, dann gut dich kennenzulernen!

[beardedragon]

Did you once build a well known Ubuntu takeoff?
Are you R.J Dohnert?

I'm afraid I'm not R.J Dohnert. I'm a German user and my first name is Robert.

Apology in order. Sorry.