system.d or not

[urdrwho]

Thanks to the ability of MX to start with system.d or without it, I've had a chance to see if there is a difference. There may be a very minimal amount of difference in system memory, I can not see any difference on my KDE distro or any application.
Am I missing something on my assessment?

[CharlesV]

There are a lot of factors of systemd vs sysvinit ... ram only being a small portion of them (imo ).

If you are really wanting to know the tech differences, then I would suggest a search for systemd vs sysvinit and walk through the many many posts.

[manyroads]

Thanks to the ability of MX to start with system.d or without it, I've had a chance to see if there is a difference. There may be a very minimal amount of difference in system memory, I can not see any difference on my KDE distro or any application.
Am I missing something on my assessment?

There are millions of articles, posts and discussions on systemd, anti-systemd.... You should be able to find enough to make your eyes bleed.

[richb]

Technical differences aside, I see no real difference in my MX 23 KDE install with sysvinit and systemd

[BV206]

The big difference I see is the services listed in MX Service Manager.

Slight difference in memory use on cold boot.

I also see something weird. I don't remember if this happened on MX 21 or 19.
My current installation (MX 23.4 Xfce) has /boot, /boot/efi and / partitions.
The / partition is encrypted.
I have the desktop set to show the Removable Devices and Disks and Drives icons.
For some reason the / partition appears as the unmounted locked encrypted disk icon only on sysv. On systemd there is no icon.

[urdrwho]

Yep there are a lot of articles and I've read articles. Some articles don't give much everyday data and instead give, well such and such isn't holding to the UNIX principles. I really could care about that. So I just thought that maybe some every day, anecdotal evidence might be cool.

From all that I've read, it really doesn't matter which way. I just thought maybe someone had a valid reason to go either way.

Thanks to the ability of MX to start with system.d or without it, I've had a chance to see if there is a difference. There may be a very minimal amount of difference in system memory, I can not see any difference on my KDE distro or any application.
Am I missing something on my assessment?

There are millions of articles, posts and discussions on systemd, anti-systemd.... You should be able to find enough to make your eyes bleed.

[CharlesV]

Personally... I find sysvinit to be far more 'manageable' with how things are done - but that is my experience and i dont have a lot with systemd ;-/

Systemd feels 'too big' to me.. I dont like everything and then some wrapped up into one big service set... and I get that it is 'tighter' connections... but ... seems too monolithic to me.

[Stevo]

Some third party applications may require a systemd boot, such as many VPNs.

[urdrwho]

Yeah I've read that but to me, I don't do any management of sysvinit or system.d and that is why I wanted to hear about things that I might see or know as just a User.

Personally... I find sysvinit to be far more 'manageable' with how things are done - but that is my experience and i dont have a lot with systemd ;-/

Systemd feels 'too big' to me.. I dont like everything and then some wrapped up into one big service set... and I get that it is 'tighter' connections... but ... seems too monolithic to me.

[manyroads]

For the wms I generally use, systemd is better.