So there are various init systems out there, from systemd, to runit, to shepherd and many others. I’ll list them here:
Others:
Which do you prefer and why?
It’s tough for another init system to beat Systemd. It caused a whirlwind about 10 years ago. It now is utilized by most of the well known, widely distributed flavors of Linux. Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat, Arch, Debian, OpenSuse, etc. That is wide adaptation representing millions upon millions of installations. That means that I can get in front of most machines and know exactly how to manage services from one distro to another.
It fixed problems with SysV and has many features that make it suitable for all of the above and more. It is easy to manage – learn about 6 commands and you can check, stop, start, and modify all of the services on your machine.
It has a robust scripting language – it can handle tasks automatically and do that flawlessly.
It can be setup to “wake” on port activation and respond by starting services. It can be modified to operate with timers and limits on services.
Plus there is excellent logging for when things do go as planned.
But, I should say that I’ve only worked with one other init system other than systemd. So, my personal experience is limited.
I use systemd and always have since it was implemented in Ubuntu and Fedora. I don’t really see any issue with it whatsoever when it comes to my usecase so I just use it.
I suspect the biggest reason people didnt like systemd was because of how much dominant it was becoming and how quickly that happened and people simply dont like change. This would require people to rewrite so many configs and scripts and stuff that they preferred to fight it than adapt. I have had many people tell me this directly but I dont know if that is a universal thing, seemed pretty common though.
I do not prefer any. I just use the default and that is mostly systemd.
Don’t worry guts there’s plenty of distro’s using the alternative init systems with plenty of people using them. Not many Red Hat based ones obviously but take a look. Devuan has spawned a few successful ones plus it’s a good base for deb type distro’s, a few Arch spinoffs Artix etc. There’s the Gentoo ones Slackware and so on Then there’s my favorite Void. I occasionally use systemd but definitely not a high priority.
I have no strong preference. If it works well according to the good folks who put the distro together, it’s good enough for me! I rarely have to configure at that level anyway.
My daily driver is and has been Debian, I think for close to about a decade now. It uses systemd. I know the folks at Devuan wanted to have a simpler alternative, and I respect that too.
Hard to beat SystemD as an Init, and yet MXLinux has held onto top spot on Distro Watch for some time now.
One could argue that the main factor setting MXLinux apart from most of the other Distros is the choice of SystemD or any of the alternative Init’s at installation.
People like the freedom of choice
That and it runs well on older hardware
systemd is very nice for me as a non devops engineer because it lets me get up and running on most systems very quickly. Though that is not really the system itself but rather the adoption and market penetration. I do think there has to be some merit for it to have such adoption though.
As for MX Linux on top of Distrowatch, this is a very very skewed metric. I like MX Linux, it is a solid distro. However, MX Linux being #1 on Distrowatch for about 5 years is only proof that the Distrowatch ranking list is not a viable metric. You have to go back to 2018 on the list to see MX Linux not as #1. MX Linux is not more used than Ubuntu, Fedora, Linux Mint, and so on. It is a good distro but it is not more used than those by any stretch. For years the Distrowatch ranking list didnt acknowledge it was powered by “page hits” on the distro’s specific distrowatch page and now they do acknowledge that but people still use it as a metric of overall popularity.
Welcome to the forum @Cafinux, I am curious. What is it about Void Linux that makes it your favorite?
Distro Watch should not be used as a Barometer for anything. Bots have been run to cook the numbers from month to month.
A very simple Selenium script takes care of that.
Unfortunate but true. The difficulty is that folks who gravitate to Linux often don’t like telemetry in the first place. This makes the actual count of distro popularity and installations (except for broad generalizations) a nearly unknown figure.
I think it has to do with the choices of how you can install software on MX and that it offers more recent software than Debian’s default. Anyway all those can be achieved easily by an advanced Debian user. Example would be Firefox ESR vs regular Firefox or the integration of flatpak in MX instead of setting it up yourself in Debian.
The cost of running MX is that there is no supported and official upgrade path to the next version as is the case with Debian. Obviously not everybody has a need for that.
And I did not mention the MX Tools, I think that sets it apart although personally I have no need for something like that. So I think it has nothing to do with either Distrowatch or systemd. MX seems to be popular and it is talked about much, but I do not think it is more popular or more used than e.g. Ubuntu or Debian itself and I think MX Linux is also great overall.
I had a double take on this comment, So :
I would hope that Linux users have a need to upgrade their machines when a new release drops, or have the ability to upgrade once the release has matured. It feels like a chore to have to Reinstall from fresh, and a possible config hell with system packages applications. MXLinux sounds like a distro that should strongly consider the Atomic workflow. Containerize everything, update from the OS-Tree.
OK, I will make it short and not sure about that big gif. Yes, MXLinux has to be reinstalled when a major new version comes out, not the point releases. You can find that on their website. It is not the only distro that does this, but Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and others have in-place upgrades and a lot of people prefer to reinstall, others prefer to upgrade to the next version, myself included.
It’s a reaction ! Like excuse me , a double take !
Yep, the package manager should cover this, I’m not familiar with Distros that require a full reinstall per major release. I personally would stay away from that. The package manager in most major distros also allow for a fresh like upgrade, with the proper flags of course.
Uff, I’m shocked. Not sure about it.
Sorry for the fat finger typo above. It was asked why I like Void well it’s because it’s nice and tidy when you dig a little deeper and it’s package manager is a good one. They use runit which is actually quite powerful. Having said that I often use Devuan but it depends on what you want to achieve sometimes I use stock standard debian with systemd there isn’t anything terribly wrong with it as an init system and it has a simple interface for beginners as they had the advantage of following along to the others and could learn from them.
It’s where they went after that is the problem, linking a whole lot of service control programs together you may as well use a propriety system which Redhat is. But that isn’t Linux because it’s for getting things done which Redhat isn’t they think like winblows how many dollars can they earn out of it.
So summing up how I think about the various distro’s and init systems etc. If the one you are using right now isn’t doing what you want have a dig round there’s sure to be another that’s going in the direction you want, That’s the magic of Linux!