MX Linux Forum

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:40 pm**

Please respond to this poll.

If you use systemd please let us know why, if there's a specific app that you need that runs only on systemd. Same question if you switch between init systems.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:07 pm**

By way of a comment... one of the best things about MX/antiX is having the option to bypass systemd. Just sayin'

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:44 pm**

I've been digging deep in ancient archieves on my road to Linux and... please don't get me started on systemD...

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:54 pm**

PSA: the correct spelling of the name "systemd" is all lowercase

The poll mentions 2 init alternatives; I'm posting to remind that, across the linux ecosystem, many alternatives exist

source: without-systemd.org wiki Alternatives_to_systemd

SysV init
the traditional Linux System V init
date of latest release: 2019-02-25

ToyBox init
small and simple conventional init without runlevels included in ToyBox;
solely signal driven; (almost) compatible with BusyBox init (same config syntax/file)
date of latest release: 2019-02-09

oneit
very simple init launcher (just (re)spawns a single child process and reacts to incoming signals) included in ToyBox
date of latest release: 2019-02-09

BusyBox init
small and simple conventional init without runlevels, solely signal driven IPC (no fifos, sockets, SysV IPC); part of BusyBox
date of latest release: 2018-12-30

Pygos init
Small and quite simple init with task/service ordering used in Pygos GNU/Linux
(config and init script examples)
date of latest release: 2018-11-25

procd
OpenWrt init and process/service management daemon with ubus integration
date of latest release: 2018-07-30

dinit
dependency based C++ init with process supervision, roll-back, and socket activation
date of latest release: 2018-07-12

s6-linux-init
generates an exec-chaining init around s6-svscan
date of latest release: 2018-03-26

finit
event based, modular, extensible init with SysV runlevels, daemon supervision & logging, optional builtin getty and inetd
date of latest release: 2018-01-23

nosh
exec chaining, dependency-based daemontools family, C++ init and supervision suite
date of latest release: 2017-12-11

ueld
simple configuration, solely signal driven (akin to BSD/BusyBox/ToyBox init)
date of latest release: 2017-06-24

uinit
Smallest init possible
date of latest release: 2017-05-16

pies
dependency based GNU init daemon and super server with SysV runlevels, daemon supervision//logging
date of latest release: 2016-10-01

sninit
Small init implementation with SysV init like (sub)runlevels
date of latest release: 2015-12-31

epoch
sequential, non-parallel init without dependency tracking designed for minimal footprint and unified configuration
date of latest release: 2015-06-23

sinit
Simple init initially based on Rich Felker’s minimal init
date of latest release: 2015-06-16

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:01 pm**

For what it's worth, which is not much.... I like SysV init bestest...

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:07 pm**

manyroads wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:01 pm For what it's worth, which is not much.... I like SysV init bestest...

Have you used anything else?

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:34 pm**

Adrian wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:07 pm
manyroads wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:01 pm For what it's worth, which is not much.... I like SysV init bestest...
Have you used anything else?

I think the answer is "yes" but it was in the long ago past. The names on your list do not ring a bell.... sorry.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:53 pm**

FWIW, I use OpenRC on Gentoo and it is fantastic. It works a lot like sysvinit but is better in many ways and doesn't have all of the deep complications and implications of systemd. If Debian had switched to OpenRC then I would have been jumping for joy. It fixes the problem with sysvinit without getting all up in your face.

IMO the Debian version of sysvinit has always been very kludgy going back to 2002 or so when I first encountered it. The init system used on Gentoo made so much more sense and was so much easier to use. By 2016 or so Debian had gotten rid of their most egregious problems but it still made perfect sense for them to want to change the init system. It's a crying shame they didn't choose OpenRC.

Since Debian still has more than a modicum of sysvinit support and AFAIK almost no OpenRC support I don't think it makes sense for us to try to change to OpenRC.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:59 pm**

I was just researching to refresh my old brain... OpenRC is what I, also, liked.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:37 pm**

I have to boot systemd to update my Expressvpn as you can not install a newer version on normal boot, even if with a hack it runs on sysVinit. At least that is not very often.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:47 am**

My Void Linux installation uses runit as the init, but since I'm not knowledgeable about inits, I had to read up from their Wiki and forum on what symlinks to add and where, in order to get printing and scanning (this was separate from printing services) services working.

I wouldn't want that sort of DIY system for MX.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:17 am**

When I first heard about it and saw the uproar over systemd I was neutral as I didn't expect it to affect me. But as it rolled out into and through Ubuntu and its derivatives I started having issues, namely--slow boot. Then you get to run systemd analyze-blame. systemd is a behemoth that swallows up an OS, and when it screws up it affects lots of other systems. It needs to die a quick death.
Interesting that there is no sysVinit analyze-blame, at least I don't know of such a command and have never needed one for MX.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:38 am**

1) The default works just fine

2) Systemd works just fine too, or loads of other distros wouldn't be using it, but

3) I worry about anything that burrows it's way so deeply into into so many parts of the system

4) Call me old fashioned, but I still think the original Unix idea of small, apps or programs or whatever you want to call them these days that do ONE thing, do it well, but can be strung together (or piped) to do a wide variety of more complex actions still has merit.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:57 am**

Interesting that there is no sysVinit analyze-blame, at least I don't know of such a command and have never needed one for MX.

The bootlog contains millisecond-accurate timestamped entries.
If you're interested a graphic-y report, visit https://mxlinux.org/wiki/system/boot-parameters/ and search in page for "bootchart"

For an example of what the bootchart output looks, check out the image attached to a post in this antixforum topic:
https://www.antixforum.com/forums/topic ... ntix-boot/
(searching @antixforum for "bootchart" will also find other posted examples)

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:36 am**

I like the Gentoo (and BSD) OpenRC with sysVinit

The one thing (of many) that I don't like about systemd is, as far as i know, not had a full security audit.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:29 am**

I use whatever a distro comes with, but prefer the old way, as I haven't a clue about systemd, but don't like having 'all your eggs in one basket', which is what systemd is aiming for - just like MS Registry, far too complex.

I do use a distro with systemd, it is Raspbian, used on my ARM based RPi SOCs, but I'm looking into finding a better O/S for them, possibly TinyCore, but I've been Debian based for a long time now, old habits die hard.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:20 am**

I voted sysVinit - I have booted sytemd a few times to see what difference it made. I found nothing significant.

Phil

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:24 am**

I've loved using OpenRC; SysV, Runit, on their various home distros & on the BSD's; plus whatever the Amiga OS & the Mac OS prior to OS/X & OS/X too, use.

There have also been some other inits from wierd OS's that I can't remember, & of course whatever Haiku is using.

I've known what the various OS's listed above that I say I don't remember or know are. It is just that my memory is trashed by the raviges of the aging process. So there you go.

The thing in this post that is most important to me, at least - is that if MX ever makes systemd its default, then I am gone elsewhere on the very day that I hear the news.

Long live ALL of the alternatives to systemd!

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:48 am**

I'm probably going to get hated on for saying this, but there are a few snaps that I really like, such as obs-studio (as in the latest/very recent version, 23), electron-mail, and wire. So I need to manually boot into systemd to install and use those.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:33 am**

esbeeb wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:48 am I'm probably going to get hated on for saying this...

Naw...the Dev team is just trying to understand how many people are using the systemd boot option vs. the default sysVinit

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:31 am**

Well, if a sysVinit start/stop script got created when I install snapd (such that snapd starts at boot time, under sysVinit), then I wouldn't need to reboot into systemd mode.

Pretty please, oh MX Linux devs, could that be created somehow when the snapd package gets installed? :)

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:05 am**

esbeeb wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:31 am Well, if a sysVinit start/stop script got created when I install snapd (such that snapd starts at boot time, under sysVinit), then I wouldn't need to reboot into systemd mode.

Pretty please, oh MX Linux devs, could that be created somehow when the snapd package gets installed? :)

not to get off-topic, but this point might be relevant for some folks answering the poll. Its not the starting of snapd that is hard (its actually pretty easy). Its the fact that snapd as shipped actually requires systemd to be running to operate and run snaps. I don't look for this to change since ubuntu pretty much is the driving factor for snaps, and they use systemd by default.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:41 am**

Thank you, Adrian, for this survey.

antiX14-RD was back then with systemd.
It was the coolest OS ever for me and I was hoping that anti would stay with it. Unfortunately, the team decided against it.

To the critics of systemd, I want to say here, take an OS with you
systemd, which this init system uses inherently. Which doesn't have a hermaphrodite like MX. The initial teething troubles have been overcome. I use siduction and archlinux. Both were installed around 2016 and don't cause me any problems.
You have to "get involved" with systemd, you have to learn it. For me it is the most beneficial invention of the last few years, because I have to use my OS "understand". I never understood sysvinit.

Logically MX starts with systemd.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:08 pm**

manyroads wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:07 pm By way of a comment... one of the best things about MX/antiX is having the option to bypass systemd. Just sayin'

Choices are always good.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:25 pm**

Here is just one issue I've run into with systemd, the dreaded 1min 30s delay at boot because systemd doesn't like that swap got moved or changed:
viewtopic.php?f=108&t=45816&p=454939&hi ... id#p454939

As asqwerth noted:
This is an annoying known systemd issue. It happens usually not when swap is renamed but because you may have reformatted the swap partition in the midst of installing another distros. Once you do that, even if you're using the same partition for swap, the UUID number of that swap partition is no longer the original one. To systemd, that means the whole identity of swap has changed so it can't find it if it's looking for something that matches the number on the fstab file.

I'm actually dealing with this right now as I replaced a drive in a two drive system and LMDE (based on Debian Stable with systemd) is annoyed and delaying my boot.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:00 pm**

skidoo wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:54 pm PSA: the correct spelling of the name "systemd" is all lowercase

openrc

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:22 pm**

Please don't post your favourite init; just simply answer the question about which do you use on MX, thanks.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:04 pm**

figueroa wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:00 pm
skidoo wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:54 pm PSA: the correct spelling of the name "systemd" is all lowercase
openrc

First of all, OpenRC is absent from the list pasted in my earlier message because
by design, OpenRC does not an supply "init" ~~ it just provides a service supervision suite
(note the highlighted wording within the gentoo.org wiki, below)

Second, I can't understand why you quoted that line from my post.
Did you mistakenly believe the OpenRC project also uses/prefers all lowercase in their project name?

Please don't post your favourite init; just simply answer the question about which do you use on MX, thanks.

But why, mommy?
We're on a roll, trading notes and learnin' stuff and eveeebody can see the poll is available and vote if they wanna

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:24 pm**

skidoo wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:04 pm
But why, mommy?
We're on a roll, trading notes and learnin' stuff and eveeebody can see the poll is available and vote if they wanna

Start a new thread if you want to discuss init systems.
This thread is simply to find out which of the 2 init systems provided by MX is chosen by users.
For systemd users, it is also useful to know why
e.g. post by esbeeb in which the poster's preferred app only works (for now) with systemd.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:34 pm**

Not that he needs my confirmation or support, but please comply with anticapitilista's request and adrian's first post. Want a thorough discussion of init systems? Start a new thread.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:07 pm**

I actually do quite love the fact that MX 18 uses sysvinit.
sysvinit might indeed be about 25 years old by now, but heck - the by then attained level of intimacy (by you or me) over so many years of hands-on stuff (almost like a marriage in some ways, haha) just breeds some very cosy familiarity.
I can for example usually find my own way blindfolded (so to speak) around all the various config file based and often shell-scripts, the entire boot-up and boot-down sequences are all fully known and clear too. So much bash stuff etc. All this is just-about on speed-dial.

I really do think that this sheer robustness qua booting and that by (deploying an ultra tried-and-trusted approach to the intricacies of) booting up almost any hardware out there could very well partly explain MX's recent explosive surge in popularity. I have yet to
have MX fail to boot for me completely - excepting one very troublesome Toshiba laptop (but almost nothing booted on it anyway - just an ultra cheap and flaky one). Sometimes a small extra tweak or two needed ...but we have all been there and done that.
Of course other aspects of MX's recent popularity surge are very manifold - a very clean design with nice graphics and clear help, a very and even ultra-helpful community, a plethora of very useful tools, a rock-solid base in stretch,
readily available request-based on-demand backports and kernel rolls, very up-to-date browsers, pretty recent kernels included, rolls and respins and masters all available. You name it, basically. Just attention to detail and giving users what they actually want.

I do use Gentoo and Arch quite a bit (about 10% of time-spent) - and the former in particular just goes it's own way here, as per usual. No worries though. Most of my other distros like Tumbleweed, Fedora and some others (about 60%) etc are all exclusively 100% systemd though.

As to systemd, I would suggest a very tiny exercise here. Just after initial boot-up, launch konsole (or xterm) and then execute $ echo $$

This result will tell you just how many processes actually got spawned from good-old PID 1 to achieve your desktop (ps, I always use KDE not the default Xfce). My result was 6535 here. On a mac I do get 159 here - and mac uses launchd, which is kinda same-same-but-still-quite-different to systemd.
On Tumbleweed I get 312. You can also (cough, cough and haha) just grep (or fgrep or rgrep) your own sysvinit start-up files under the /etc* tree to identify how many instances of (say) bash-based stuff like grep, awk, sed, find, cut etc are listed and executed on boot.
I get (not using MX here btw) well in excess of 900+ instances here. Who cares? Well ...each of these syscalls btw (from within bash or else tsch etc) during boot ....launches a new process id and fully accesses all it's libraries and can stall on wait-to-complete and has a whole wait cycle spawned.
Even if the single awk call in bash only does something tiny or minuscule, like disable ipv6 or whatever. Can still impact your boot though. Bash so easy to write and to hack, but quite expensive qua wait time during full boot-up stuff.

systemd is so very clean, mean and ultra-fast here. The only caveat is a properly implemented iteration of systemd. Everything if done very cleanly just explodes your boot time upwards. All processes just-about launched simultaneously and in full parallel mode.
No more waiting for fsck or mount or whatever or fstab accesses, all needed stuff just gets written to a ram-based autofs temporary file and then queued to actual write once the /home directory etc come online.
No more dependancy-based boot stuff aka everything just waiting for syslog to launch and to thus have /var/log up and running (SYSVINIT style). Just written to a ram buffer instead and then flushed in when online. If you do bootchart sysvinit, just so many wait cycles visible.

systemd also does not launch all and sundry services like cups or avahi. Your printer might be gathering dust most of the time, so why launch it always then. Instead it will launch only if-and-when needed. Dynamically. No waiting for any sockets to come online under /var/run, just written to ram buffers
and then queued for actual writes. No process then stalled waiting for only one tiny aspect, if the other 99% is already delivered. No waiting for confirmation stuff, just launch all processes at once and then queue the small missing elements within ram.

Launchd under mac also controls the full desktop environment too, not just the boot bit. systemd can also integrate very well with (say) kdeinit here too aka to minimize unnecessary duplication and to massively increase fluidity in launching. Also security is quite well-covered here as well.
sysvinit does have a huge issue with controlling external factors and sysvinit is so very poor at managing child processes or forking cq double/triple forking etc. Then a pkill command issued only gives a limited process kill, with many zombie or orphaned pid's left. systemd uses cgroups here as a catch-all.
Actually Apple got the idea of launchd from the older UNIX-based and server side inetd which handled tcp/ip stuff ...except thet inetd in it's default-mode of operation spawned a new tcp/ip connection for every connection (duh and why do that!!), which just proved to be incredibly slow.
However very well hidden within inetd (and completely undocumented therein) was the alternate option of defining a single master process and then spawning child tcp/ip from there within ...which was instead just ultra-fast. Don't know why this was never the default mode?
Anyways inetd as deployed natively just sucked big time ... but in it's secondary mode did not do so at all. Some bright spark at Apple then decided to leverage this mostly undiscovered secondary mode for it's own launchd master principle idea. Walking on the shoulders of giants etc.

I do also love a properly delivered systemd. My own business model deploys tumbleweed aka full rolling release with latest and greatest stuff - all just a moment away. Gotta be quite careful here on the snapshot updating stuff, but nowadays mainline kernel is just-about rock-solid and never had any unsolvable issues at all.
Would never ever install Tumbleweed (or else bleeding-edge Fedora) though for any family and friends. For them the priority is mostly stuff that just works ootb, not stuff that requires lots of judicial care and attention. MX has always been a very serious go-to distro in this regard. You can just about guarantee that it will work
and will continue to work and just be rock-solid and will require the smallest amount of external coaching or fiddling. A lot to be said for something that just works as is. I would not like MX to go systemd myself at all. The amount of work needed would be immense ...and to then achieve exactly what? MX just fine as is.
Huge re-learning curve attached for both devs and the entire userbase too and a small(er) distro needs to find niche areas to attract more users and not ever ways to potentially alienate them IMO. MX just fine as is, I'd like to think. Innovate in so many other areas and leave the intricacies of systemd to the bigger players

I have no problems at all with systemd (bar being dumped to a maintenance shell and it's then quite complicated syntax therein or else searching for answers when stuff sometimes goes wrong) or else being semi-forced to learn almost entirely new ways of doing stuff, which this way does require. Although one plus-point is that the then gained knowledge is pretty much distro-independent and will slot in in just about every distro out-there. Which normally did not apply when distro hopping, so systemd is quite uniform accross various *nixes. Usually for me) systemd is just fantastic to use and quite modern,
and delivers about 100x serious advantages over old-school sysvinit ....but Linux is all-about choice and sysvinit is not dead. Nor are those that use it. I'm quite quietly pleased that MX in fact actually prioritizes so many other areas of the basic computing experience - like look and feel, great user experience, solidity, great forum help, customizing packages and backporting stuff ...which are all major factors for most casual, very many intermediate and even quite a few expert users. Always nice to have something that you just know will boot and will just work for you. I would hate to have any of that make way for a big effort to got systemd instead.

MX just fine as is IMO. Better than fine actually!! Would not have it any other way.

Hope this does not derail anything. Not meant to do so. No reason to incite any flame wars. Could have just clicked a button. Indeed (as i suspected and fully agree with - MX and sysvinit is a very good match indeed).
MX maybe a bit old-school with sysvinit, but also bleeding edge with web-browsers, kernels and so many other ways. Whatever you do is up to you, is the Linux way I'd like to think.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:25 pm**

Hope this does not derail anything. Not meant to do so. No reason to incite any flame wars. Could have just clicked a button.

Which is what anticapitalista and I asked everyone to do and post these discussions in the thread that was started for them.

Posted: **Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:57 pm**

anticapitalista wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:22 pm Please don't post your favourite init; just simply answer the question about which do you use on MX, thanks.

Sorry, I was just replying to skidoo's incomplete list of init alternatives. I didn't mean to imply that the one that I listed was my favorite. I'm very much in favor of the choices that MX has made. Debian is a good choice of base for MX. I don't believe that Debian's decision to embrace systemd was wise. MX's approach that works around Debian's systemd dependencies is wonderful. I hope that it is sustainable.

Posted: **Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:27 am**

systemd simply for snap support

Posted: **Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:56 am**

Yesterday was nordvpn (very sophisticated native app developed by nordVPN) for Linux significantly upgraded from version 2.2 to version 3.0. The one of main change is cancellation of sysVinit support. So from now is supported only systemd. Of course is still possible to connect to nordVPN servers via openvpn or downgrade and lock to nordvpn app version 2.2 (the only solution for MX Linux users), but the latest nordvpn v3.0 app is far more better ...

I am afraid that this situation will be more and more frequent in the near future, because systemd is practically standard for all main Linux distributions. On the other hand I still agree that systemd is a bit problematic (basic assumption of MX developers), but ... Any opinion?

Posted: **Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:44 pm**

esbeeb wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:48 am there are a few snaps that I really like, such as obs-studio (as in the latest/very recent version, 23), electron-mail, and wire.

After a little research into seeing if I could go sysVinit-only with little hassle (and keeping the apps I mentioned earlier), here's what I found:

Some of these snaps are available as flatpaks, namely obs (called "com.obsproject.Studio" in flatpak), and wire (called "com.wire.WireDesktop" in flatpak). But flatpak doesn't, at this time, have (the latest) ffmpeg and electron-mail (whatsoever).

One thing about requiring a Gnome Desktop dependency, say for obs-studio, in a snap, is that the snap package for gnome (called "gnome-3-26-1604") is only 147MB. But the Gnome desktop package from flatpak (called "org.gnome.Platform", or "gnome.platform") is 1.0GB! I'm on a tight cellular data plan, so I would prefer to save that extra size to download. And flatpak additionally aggressively wants to check for newer packages every time the system boots, and this interferes with the work I want to do (the cellular data connection doesn't handle multiple connections well; the bandwith I get is far, far slower when two or more network connections are made simultaneously, so I have to manually kill flatpak with every boot, after catching it making a network connection when I don't want it to, using "nethogs"). Somehow snap behaves itself much better in this regard, it's more friendly to cellular data users. I never find myself having to catch snap with nethogs and kill it.

Having said all this, in the future, I'll look in flatpak first to find new software, before snap, as MX Linux favors it.

PS: I'm also a Docker user. Docker also wants systemd. I did the silly thing of installing Virtualbox, then a Debian VM in Virtualbox, then docker-ce in the Debian VM, just to install and use a docker container.

PPS: I don't have any qualms about MX Linux having sysVinit as the default (after a fresh install of MX Linux), but I wish there was a tool amongst the MX Tools, for toggling to systemd (and it will keep booting that way, by default, until further notice). Then I could use that same tool in the future, if necessary, to toggle back to booting with sysVinit again, by default, should the systemd-pocalyse truly arrive one day.

Posted: **Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:20 pm**

esbeeb wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:44 pm PPS: I don't have any qualms about MX Linux having sysVinit as the default (after a fresh install of MX Linux), but I wish there was a tool amongst the MX Tools, for toggling to systemd (and it will keep booting that way, by default, until further notice). Then I could use that same tool in the future, if necessary, to toggle back to booting with sysVinit again, by default, should the systemd-pocalyse truly arrive one day.

I believe this is possible now and such a tool exists. Unfortunately it may not be possible in the future.

Posted: **Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:09 pm**

esbeeb wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:44 pm but I wish there was a tool amongst the MX Tools, for toggling to systemd (and it will keep booting that way, by default, until further notice). .[/b]

When you start to boot choose advanced, boot up into systemd. Under boot options after you are running in MX set it to continue to boot systemd. I did that for awhile to keep my brightness control set correctly on each boot.

Posted: **Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:25 pm**

BitJam wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:20 pm
esbeeb wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:44 pm I wish there was a tool amongst the MX Tools, for toggling to systemd (and it will keep booting that way, by default, until further notice). Then I could use that same tool in the future, if necessary, to toggle back to booting with sysVinit again, by default, should the systemd-pocalyse truly arrive one day.
I believe this is possible now and such a tool exists. Unfortunately it may not be possible in the future.

Sweet, thanks @BitJam and @KBD, I found it. But it took some fiddling before I could get the tool to work as I expected.

Here's what I had to do:
1) MX Tools -> Boot Options -> Check the two checkboxes: "Enable saving last boot choice", and "Use flat menus (no submenus)" -> Apply -> Close.
2) Reboot
3) MX Tools -> Boot Options -> "Boot to" dropdown -> MX 18.1 Continuum, with Linux 4.19.0-1-amd64 (systemd) -> Apply -> Close.

If I didn't break it into two visits to the "Boot Options" tool like this, it would still boot to sysVinit (if I merely did step 3 above).

Posted: **Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:56 pm**

Glad you got it figured out :)

Posted: **Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:49 pm**

I'm actually really grateful that MX Linux provides that tool. I appreciate their views on avoiding systemd, and I'm OK with them having a preference that they make the default, that of sysVinit, but then they let me have an "out" if I needed it. This shows respect that they are not out to shove their views down my throat. That means a lot.

Sincerely thanks, MX Linux devs, for not being unreasonable idealists. You came up with a way to accommodate the views on both sides of the camp.

Posted: **Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:00 pm**

I voted default. I've only been using Linux for 4 years and pretty much only "know" systemd. It works for my modest means, but I am very sympathetic to the idea of "init freedom" and those who question systemd's trajectory. As it stands right now, I don't need systemd - all my tools work perfectly. I roll vanilla Arch with systemd on my desktop, but MX/sysVinit on other installs. I really hope MX/anitX can continue to provide an alternative init to systemd. When WW3 comes around, I'm camping up with those that know how to hunt, fish, canoe, and pitch a tent. I predict a huge init fork down the road. We're in good hands.

Posted: **Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:35 pm**

Systemd creates more problems than solutions. Systemd will not provide any improvement to MX Linux.

Posted: **Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:27 am**

Don't care about systemd for now.

I use MX Linux because it doesn't use systemd and I guess there are many others like me.

Posted: **Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:01 am**

To find out which init you are using in MX run the following in terminal:
sudo dpkg -S /sbin/init

Posted: **Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:23 am**

beardedragon wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:01 am sudo dpkg -S /sbin/init

That won't work with MX because the systemd-sysv package isn't installed, a kernel parameter is used to boot with systemd instead of sysvinit.

This will work though:

Code: Select all

cat /proc/1/comm

For example, I've just installed MX and I'm running systemd as PID1 so I see

Code: Select all

empty@mx:~ $ dpkg -S /sbin/init
sysvinit-core: /sbin/init
empty@mx:~ $ cat /proc/1/comm
systemd
empty@mx:~ $

Posted: **Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:39 am**

Yeah, or "ps -p1" if you see "init" in output it's sysvinit, if you see "systemd" guess what...

Posted: **Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:35 pm**

@Head_on_a_Stick
That won't work with MX because the systemd-sysv package isn't installed, a kernel parameter is used to boot with systemd instead of sysvinit.

bob@mx:~
$ sudo dpkg -S /sbin/init
[sudo] password for bob:
sysvinit-core: /sbin/init

Posted: **Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:14 pm**

beardedragon wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:35 pm
Code: Select all
bob@mx:~
$ sudo dpkg -S /sbin/init
[sudo] password for bob: 
sysvinit-core: /sbin/init

Try that again after rebooting and selecting the systemd option from MX's "Advanced Options" GRUB sub-menu, it will return the same output even when systemd is running as init.

And that dpkg command will work as your normal user btw.

@all: apologies for the noise.

Posted: **Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:46 pm**

Head_on_a_Stick wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:14 pm
beardedragon wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:35 pm
Code: Select all
bob@mx:~
$ sudo dpkg -S /sbin/init
[sudo] password for bob: 
sysvinit-core: /sbin/init
Try that again after rebooting and selecting the systemd option from MX's "Advanced Options" GRUB sub-menu, it will return the same output even when systemd is running as init.

And that dpkg command will work as your normal user btw.

@all: apologies for the noise.

I don't want systemd, thanks anyway.

Posted: **Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:49 pm**

Head_on_a_Stick wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:23 am
beardedragon wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:01 am sudo dpkg -S /sbin/init
That won't work with MX because the systemd-sysv package isn't installed, a kernel parameter is used to boot with systemd instead of sysvinit.

This will work though:
Code: Select all
cat /proc/1/comm
For example, I've just installed MX and I'm running systemd as PID1 so I see
Code: Select all
empty@mx:~ $ dpkg -S /sbin/init
sysvinit-core: /sbin/init
empty@mx:~ $ cat /proc/1/comm
systemd
empty@mx:~ $

bob@mx:~
$ cat /proc/1/comm
init

Posted: **Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:46 pm**

Of even simpler

Code: Select all

ps 1

Posted: **Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:22 pm**

bob@mx:~
$ ps 1
PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
1 ? Ss 0:00 init [5]

Posted: **Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:52 am**

$ inxi -Ix

That's a -capital i

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:05 pm**

As the upstream dev for sysvinit, it's nice to see lots of people still find it useful.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:21 pm**

And are grateful for your work!

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:59 pm**

Much appreciate your work newguy!

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:17 pm**

Thanks, "new guy".
Many of us are eternally grateful
for your maintenance of sysVinit.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:15 pm**

newguy wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:05 pm As the upstream dev for sysvinit, it's nice to see lots of people still find it useful.

More than useful IMO - keep up your great work on sysvinit

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:41 pm**

Thanks newguy. As an old-timer who's learned the runlevel-based startup system with SysVr3 i am glad the knowledge still applies. Systemd is not as aggravating as it once was, but MX sure demonstrates it does not boot any faster than its time-tested predecessor.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:03 pm**

newguy wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:05 pm As the upstream dev for sysvinit, it's nice to see lots of people still find it useful.

So, you are the reason this all works? IMO, Well done!

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:39 pm**

I'm new to the MX LInux community and don't yet have a strong opinion on sysvinit vs systemd. I am grateful that when I ran into an issue with open-vm-tools and sysvinit not working properly with vmware, that someone suggested using on systemd. Not only was I able to get things working properly, but it also helped to identify a potential need for an init script modification in sysvinit. If not for that suggestion, I might have given up because I was unable to get a key piece of functionality to work the way I needed it to work using the default.

While I understand the philosophical argument for using sysvinit instead of systemd, I'm left wondering: Why is it that so many other distributions are comfortable moving to systemd? It leads me to ask a few questions:

1. First, what (if anything) are we missing? Perhaps we're not missing anything at all. But why is it that others distribution appear much more comfortable with the switch?
2. Second, is staying with sysvinit the right long-term approach *IF* the Linux community is, in large part, moving to systemd? Is systemd viewed as the 'new direction" and we're going to be left behind? Or does it even matter? I guess, outside of the philosophical points, I don't understand what the two choices mean to the average user.
3. Third, *IF* the Linux community is moving in large part to systemd, will we see more apps that require it to run properly? Is that a potential problem? Again, I'm trying to understand what this means to the average user.
4. Fourth, is there a way to improve many systemd to address many of the points / short-comings that led people to want to remain on sysvinit? Would this be a win for the broader Linux community?

Anyway, I hope these questions represent "food for thought" as you consider your alternatives.

Edit: Note, I say "*IF*" because I am asking a question, not because I have any information that says this is the case.

Edit 2: Removed questions based on subsequent input from dolphin_oracle and skidoo (both below).

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:52 pm**

I appreciate the questions, however this is an area that usually opens up some debate and I don't want this thread to become another rehash of past arguments.

here's the short short answer: the antiX live system is designed to work with sysVinit. there are a few things that don't work under systemd, so we use sysVinit by default.

I'm not speaking for everyone when I say this, but I personally don't care what init system folks used. I have no crusade, but I'm not giving up the antiX live system because the antiX live system is awesome!

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:58 pm**

1.
2.
3.
4.

sbryant, we can meetup in another topic after you've perused the reading material linked to the following wiki pages:
Arguments_against_systemd
and
List_of_articles_critical_of_systemd

Posted: **Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:01 am**

@dolphin_oracle and @skidoo, thanks for the reply. I didn't realize what I had stepped into by asking the questions until after scanning and reading a few links in the wiki pages that @skidoo shared. This topic runs much deeper than the questions I asked. I can understand why we wouldn't want this thread to become a debate.

Posted: **Fri May 03, 2019 4:06 pm**

dolphin_oracle wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:52 pm I appreciate the questions, however this is an area that usually opens up some debate and I don't want this thread to become another rehash of past arguments.

here's the short short answer: the antiX live system is designed to work with sysVinit. there are a few things that don't work under systemd, so we use sysVinit by default.

I'm not speaking for everyone when I say this, but I personally don't care what init system folks used. I have no crusade, but I'm not giving up the antiX live system because the antiX live system is awesome!

Yesss. Antix Live is one of the crown jewels of the MX system.

Posted: **Tue May 07, 2019 12:47 am**

Anbox works only on systemd. So i need to switch. other than that i use sysvinit.

Posted: **Tue May 07, 2019 2:31 pm**

I think if Debian Buster can only run one init system we need a new poll something like:

If you have to choose only one init system for MX, which do you choose?

1. sysVinit
2. systemd

Despite my angst against systemd, in that poll I would choose systemd, even though I picked sysVinit in this one because systemd has fixed some issues for me that I had with sysVinit. With the shim on Debian Stretch we never really had to make a hard choice between the two, but it looks like we may have to in Debian Buster.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 6:02 am**

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.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 7:11 am**

Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 6:02 am 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.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 10:29 am**

beardedragon wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 7:11 am
Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 6:02 am 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.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 10:33 am**

Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:29 am.

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.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 10:36 am**

Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:29 am [..]
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

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 10:38 am**

beardedragon wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:33 am
Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:29 am.

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?

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 10:47 am**

manyroads wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:36 am
Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:29 am [..]
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.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 10:54 am**

Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:47 am [..]
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!

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 10:55 am**

Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:38 am
beardedragon wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:33 am
Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:29 am.

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?

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 11:10 am**

beardedragon wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:55 am 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.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 11:54 am**

Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 11:10 am
beardedragon wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:55 am 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!

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 12:00 pm**

Roberto wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 11:10 am
beardedragon wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 10:55 am 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.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 4:02 pm**

definitely change to systemd, sysvinit brings me problems when starting, the machine sometimes froze and would not start. Since I activated systemd, I never again booted boot issues in MX Linux. :) I think MX should start by default with Systemd and alternately with sysvinit, I do not see that there is any problem with this. Systemd is already accepted in the vast majority of distros and without any inconvenience.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 5:16 pm**

I've noticed that the vast majority of those who answered the poll have selected SysV init being the default init system. I wonder if the result would be the same if the default init system was systemd?

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 9:23 pm**

I would prefer MX Linux to stay away from systemd
heres my personal reasoning
I have found that Systemd appears to require minimum 2.5GHZ Cpu's, 4gig ram, SSD's to be functional.

OpenSuse, Manjaro, Ubuntu, Linux Mint with Systemd on my systems have been unuasble. this is using XFCE, LXDE, LXQT,

Sluggish to boot. (at least as long as OpenRC usually worse).

Sluggish to move around Graphical Interface (windows bloat equivalent)

Constant loss of Wifi connection.

MX Linux doesnt/didnt suffer wifi connection loss but was still sluggish but usable.

Majaro OpenRC, Devuan

boot time average (not fast, but not waiting for ever either)

Graphical Interface Speed more than usable/functional.

no loss of wifi connection.

Conclusions I came to:

Regardless of the mass inroads Linux Gaming has made, with the gear I have available to me to use, Im no better off with Linux vs Win7 (no we wont debate Linux vs Win10 lol).

SSD's read/write speeds hide the true speed of Systemd compared to Systemd on HDD's. (making Systemd useless on old hardware).

you can have lots of ram, Hdd space, but without a fast cpu dont bother (tested with a 1.6GHz cpu, 64-bit, 8gig ram, 500gig Hdd and a 32-bit Medion computer 4gig ram, 3.5-4GHZ cpu, 1 terabyte Hdd ) .

booting from cold took 5- 10 minutes
1.5 minutes to get mouse from botom-left to top-right of monitor screen
- 17inch square (aka crt style)
- 15 inch widescreen (laptop style)

programs/ aplications took 3-5 minutes to open with only one running (not including background junk)
browser 3-5 minutes (when it opened youtube was fine)
webpages took 2-5 minutes (depended on sites programs aka plain text took the lower took 2, while drupal, wordpress styled ones took 5)
task manager would take 5 mins

on a non-systemd distro

boot up took longest at maybe 2 minutes
programs/ applications were almost instant (less than a minute)
mouse was fully responsive (to the point I nearly had to tone it down
webpage response times were less than 30 seconds regardless o type.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 10:42 pm**

cretsiah wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 9:23 pm I would prefer MX Linux to stay away from systemd
heres my personal reasoning
I have found that Systemd appears to require minimum 2.5GHZ Cpu's, 4gig ram, SSD's to be functional.

I don't like systemd, but none of the reasons that you mentioned can be verified. Any increase in use system resources by systemd can barely be measured, if any at all. One of the "advantages" of systemd is that properly implemented, booting can be quite a bit faster.

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 11:11 pm**

FYI recent reddit topic, systemd pros//cons, 830+ posts !

Posted: **Sun May 26, 2019 11:16 pm**

@figueroa,

Hence why I put "personal reasons", I dont know if anyone else has had similar issues, i do know they talk of other issues.

I think I know what your getting at here:
but none of the reasons that you mentioned can be verified. Any increase in use system resources by systemd can barely be measured,

however my instances were "fresh installs" of those OS's, before any tweaking as you seamed to imply here:
One of the "advantages" of systemd is that properly implemented, booting can be quite a bit faster.

I have maybe one system that I could put a systemd based distro on,to try it out, but as it is my main system for everything i do

and the fresh install Os's with systemd, failed on my testing units Im severely reluctant to try.

I am currently looking at:
- MX Linux and Calculate for the reasons of providing choice and they at least worked better on my systems.
- Artix, Devuan and Gentoo but these are not nessarily noobish friendly.

Posted: **Mon May 27, 2019 10:04 am**

I have been using the systemd on the chance that I want to install a snap. I have not installed one yet however.

Posted: **Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:26 pm**

NickStone wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 5:16 pm I've noticed that the vast majority of those who answered the poll have selected SysV init being the default init system. I wonder if the result would be the same if the default init system was systemd?

If systemd is or was the default init system, I have never had installed MX Linux.
Sorry guys.

Posted: **Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:59 pm**

Roberto wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:26 pm
NickStone wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 5:16 pm I've noticed that the vast majority of those who answered the poll have selected SysV init being the default init system. I wonder if the result would be the same if the default init system was systemd?
If systemd is or was the default init system, I have never had installed MX Linux.
Sorry guys.

Gleichfalls, @Roberto (me too). If MX goes to systemd one of my big reasons for having left manjaro (problems with systemd) is as they say in the US Military -O.B.E. (Overcome By Events)

Posted: **Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:01 am**

manyroads wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:59 pm
Roberto wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:26 pm
NickStone wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 5:16 pm I've noticed that the vast majority of those who answered the poll have selected SysV init being the default init system. I wonder if the result would be the same if the default init system was systemd?
If systemd is or was the default init system, I have never had installed MX Linux.
Sorry guys.
Gleichfalls, @Roberto (me too). If MX goes to systemd one of my big reasons for having left manjaro (problems with systemd) is as they say in the US Military -O.B.E. (Overcome By Events)

That's how it was with me. I have used Manjaro for a long time, especially when the openrc version was still available. When this version was discontinued, I went to Artix Linux.
In the beginning, I had problems with the reinstallation of the system. Meanwhile, the devs have solved many problems and there are new iso available. Right now I'm using both MX Linux and Artix Linux.
So if MX Linux changes to systemd as the default init system, I will switch completely to Artix Linux.

Posted: **Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:26 am**

Roberto wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:01 am [...]
That's how it was with me. I have used Manjaro for a long time, especially when the openrc version was still available. When this version was discontinued, I went to Artix Linux.
In the beginning, I had problems with the reinstallation of the system. Meanwhile, the devs have solved many problems and there are new iso available. Right now I'm using both MX Linux and Artix Linux.
So if MX Linux changes to systemd as the default init system, I will switch completely to Artix Linux.

I have been curious about Artix and its capabilities, as well. I plan on testing a version in VBox, probably using Openbox, maybe fluxbox and/or xfce. (We should probably take this off-line or open a systemd-free Distro discussion thread.)

Posted: **Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:46 pm**

manyroads wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:26 am [...]
(We should probably take this off-line or open a systemd-free Distro discussion thread.)

I think this would be a good idea :)

Posted: **Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:26 pm**

I recently changed to SysVinit, which was not my intention when building one systemd-free (nor systemd-shim) MX respin for testing. But the results.... amazing speed performance, instant responsive, and screen & font sharpness. These are obvious, especially in Gnome which is heavier than Xfce. As well as, with one install having an "life time" upgrade through major releases.

Here you can test on your current install:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=50684

Posted: **Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:57 am**

Roberto wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:46 pm
manyroads wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:26 am [...]
(We should probably take this off-line or open a systemd-free Distro discussion thread.)
I think this would be a good idea :)

very good idea, what do you think of devuan?

Posted: **Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:54 am**

Kulmbacher wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:57 am
manyroads wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:26 am [...]
(We should probably take this off-line or open a systemd-free Distro discussion thread.)
very good idea, what do you think of devuan?

Since you agree with manyroads, please create a new thread to talk about systemd-free distros.

Posted: **Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:25 am**

asqwerth wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:54 am
Kulmbacher wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:57 am
manyroads wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:26 am [...]
(We should probably take this off-line or open a systemd-free Distro discussion thread.)
very good idea, what do you think of devuan?
Since you agree with manyroads, please create a new thread to talk about systemd-free distros.

I did...

Posted: **Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:43 am**

Here is the tread by manyroads:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=50713

Posted: **Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:05 am**

I use sysVinit on MX. I've been using Linux for over 20 years, and I've only had one problem that I couldn't fix, which was with systemd.

I use Linux Mint as my main system, but MX is my backup in case LM won't boot (or shut down properly).

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:23 pm**

I use the default.

I am still learning a lot about Linux systems so I'm very much an end user kind of guy at this point. I didn't know I had a choice. I also have no idea what impact my making a choice about this would have on me. I don't know enough about these things to make an informed decision in any case.

As long as Steam works, I don't think I care much about the init system! :P

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:29 pm**

I've upgraded 2.88 to 2.95 (just to experience) .. And I tried OpenRC previously (parallel mode enabled) with no issues and with almost no advantages like faster booting on both old & newer laptops... And once I wanted to try Runit (just out of curiosity) with no success... (Anyone managed to install and use Runit, by the way? )

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:39 am**

Kulmbacher wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:57 am very good idea, what do you think of devuan?

I think that Devuan is a real alternative for someone, who wants to use a linux distribution without systemd.
It has a high stability and a good performance.
What I criticize is that the versions of the packages are very old. For example, Devuan 2.0 ASCII uses the kernel version 4.9.
This is the reason, why I don't want to install Devuan.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:06 pm**

Two issues just solved by booting into systemd on the forum, one with a tablet, one needing tlp to work. Not the first time using systemd has solved problems. I get the dislike of systemd, but I hope some pragmatism enters into the final decision if a choice has to be made for only one init system in MX 19.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:21 pm**

I use whatever the default is for any Linux system I run, I could really care less what init system is used as long as the computer boots and behaves as it should...

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:37 pm**

I use sysVinit as it's the default for MX-Linux. I don't see any valuable reason for switching to another init system. At leat for my use.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:25 pm**

How do you switch to/from systemd on a live USB or is that even possible?

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:46 pm**

BV206 wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:25 pm How do you switch to/from systemd on a live USB or is that even possible?

on the live-usb you cannot switch. only on installed systems.

Posted: **Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:04 pm**

I definitely use MX with systemd, sysvinit brings me problems when setting up printers. They are systemd, MX detects and adds the printers automatically, with sysvinit, MX detects the printers, but you have to add them and configure them manually. Having to do this manually, reminds me a lot of Windows, where I had to install the drivers. Then, the rest of the MX system, with systemd, works very well without problems, I do not see why to continue using sysvinit, if systemd, it works very well and has some advantages.

Posted: **Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:22 pm**

Another issue that I do not like about MX or should I say about XFCE, is having to pair my phone to transfer files via bluetooth. On a PC I am testing KDE Plasma and have an option to transefer files without having to pair the devices, it really is very comfortable. And I'm not comfortable with how to share folders on the network. I think MX should think about migrating from XFCE to another more useful desktop. I only use MX for MX snapshot, a tool that is very useful for me, otherwise I do not see another reason to use MX and sysvinit.

Posted: **Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:35 pm**

By the way, I tried once only to start with systemd (just to have a see) but it couldn't start...

MX Linux Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

snaps require systemd

Re: snaps require systemd

snapd sysVinit start/stop script, so it runs at boot time?

Re: snapd sysVinit start/stop script, so it runs at boot time?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some snaps are available as flatpaks...

Re: Some snaps are available as flatpaks...

Re: Some snaps are available as flatpaks...

Re: Some snaps are available as flatpaks...

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

Thanks for the Boot Options tool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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