Responses to Coming changes in impending MX 25 release.

[BV206]

How do you know if a program requires systemd?

[bradhamilton]

Does this mean that if I download and install MX-25 XFCE with sysV, that I will somehow be restricted from using certain Debian 13 applications, because they will be "systemd-only"?

If you currently run programs that require booting to systemd, then you would download the systemd version of the ISO, otherwise grab the sysVinit ISO.
That goes for both XFCE and fluxbox. KDE will only be released as a systemd ISO.

Thanks! - I understand - but if a Debian 13 app needs systemD, will it be suggested that we just don't use it, rather than bother the devs by asking for a fix?

I'll ask the relevant antiX question in their forum, unless a knowledgeable dev here can answer.

[Eadwine Rose]

I would wonder, considering systemd will be the default offered (if I read that right), if there are things that DON'T run on systemd. I wager it all should, right?

[baldyeti]

just out of curiosity; last week it was mentioned that

Our systemd-shim packages, which in the past allowed us to ship both systemd and sysVinit on a single iso, are not currently workable with the latest 6.12 kernels from Debian.

does that incompatibility persist with (say) a liquorix, antiX or MX-configured & compiled kernel ?

[AK-47]

I would wonder, considering systemd will be the default offered (if I read that right), if there are things that DON'T run on systemd. I wager it all should, right?

It will mostly affect anything that has services in its package, usually server-related or driver-related software or complex programs that deal with systemd. I have certainly seen a handful of those and this is since I first started with MX Linux.

[Eadwine Rose]

Oh that is just spiffy then.. I figured I'd just go with the default, and things'd be dandy.


Earlier @BV206 asked: How do you know if a program requires systemd?
Now I ask: how do you know if a program won't work with systemd?

Kindergarten version please... not because y'all are too complex, but because my understanding only goes so far with all this.

[siamhie]

I would wonder, considering systemd will be the default offered (if I read that right), if there are things that DON'T run on systemd. I wager it all should, right?

All the desktop ISO's (MX-19,MX-21,MX-23) I install (XFCE, KDE and fluxbox) are booted to systemd and I've never run into an issue with the preinstalled software.

[richb]

I would wonder, considering systemd will be the default offered (if I read that right), if there are things that DON'T run on systemd. I wager it all should, right?

All the desktop ISO's (MX-19,MX-21,MX-23) I install (XFCE, KDE and fluxbox) are booted to systemd and I've never run into an issue with the preinstalled software.

Ditto, except I use MX KDE. Occasionally boot XFCE but rarely.

[CharlesV]

and as another perspective... I use xfce and sysvinit exclusively and have had to do some 'tweaking' to get some software working. (including boot to systemd to install it), however I have been able to get all of those 'systemd only' software running on sysvinit - with a little coaxing :-)

[bradhamilton]

The arguments against using systemD currently seem largely theoretical, based on the rather obtuse way one needs to look at logs to discover issues, as well as size and complexity.

I used to run arch-based distros, and would run into issues that seemed to take a long time to fix - I came "here", hoping that escaping systemD might lead to more stable user experiences; I've not been disappointed currently, but I wonder what the future holds; that's why I'm asking these kinds of questions. I know that there are no "crystal balls", and it's good to hear that some of you are not experiencing issues running systemD in MX.

I'm still trying to decide whether or not to stick with KDE, or move to XFCE in the next release.