Should i switch from systemd to another init system, What are the advantages of using another init system?
Should i switch from systemd to another init system, What are the advantages of using another init system?
I have seen so many times that systemd is insecure, bloated, etc. So i wonder ¿does it worth to switch to another init system?
I mean, is systemd giving YOU problems? If not, don’t switch just because other people complain about it
The complaints about systemd aren't actual issues, but rather people with the flexibility of a concrete wall trying to hold on to the way they did things over two decades ago.
I didn’t use Linux two decades ago (I started on a systemd distro a few years ago), and the init system I use (runit on Void) is both simple to use and boots faster than any systemd-based distro I used; which is what I personally care about. I never used any “advanced” features of systemd other than timers and user services, and these have many alternatives.
I think systemd is fine, and has generally proven itself as reliable, but that doesn’t mean the current alternatives have no merit.
I would be interested in understanding how it boots faster considering that systemd init is fairly small and the features of runit is parallel process starting, which is also something that systemd provides.
Are you sure it's not just that void itself has less crap to load?
This feels like I'm going to have to set up a couple of Arch installs to compare for myself.
Even you asking this question means you should not. Systemd is perfectly fine for most people and the people that dislike it have their very specific reasons. Just use what your distro gives you, you shouldn't have to care about these things.
Just use what your distro gives you, you shouldn’t have to care about these things.
To expand on this: OP, if you want to try a different init, you're most likely better off switching the whole distro to one using that init. Unless of course your current distro explicitly supports many different init systems (like Gentoo). Don't try to replace it by hand in a distro that expects to run on systemd, it's a recipe for disaster.
Gentoo is great because they give you step by step directions for systemd and openrc so you can see the differences in action. (If you choose to read both sets of directions)
Switch to sysvinit and you'll understand the benefit of systemd
Oh yeah ahaha
This is a bit of a strawman. SysVinit is hardly the only alternative:
antiX: sysvinit and runit
Artix: openrc, runit, s6, and dinit
Chimera: dinit
Devuan: sysvinit (default), openrc, runit, sinit
Dragora: sysvinit + perp
Gentoo: openrc, systemd
Guix: shepherd
Hyperbola: openrc and runit
KNOPPIX: knoppix-autoconfig
MX Linux: sysvinit (default), systemd
Obarun: s6 supervision suite
Parabola: openrc, sysvinit, s6, systemd (default)
PCLinuxOS: sysvinit
Slackware: sysvinit
Stali: sinit
Void Linux: runit, openrc
Openrc at least is sysvinit based. Pre systemd the options were really sysvinit and upstart. Upstart was even worse than sysvinit such that afaik no one has bothered to try to revive.
The kind of suggestion that does fuck all. Don't force your myopic ignorance on others.
just another one of the holy wars within Linux – for the average user, it’s not going to make any difference – most of the mainstream distros switched over a LONG time ago so if you want to avoid systemd, you have to do a little hunting (ex. Devuan, Void, Gentoo, etc.)
so, it's all just a "Playstation VS Xbox" kind of thing
It used to be that everything in Linux was a file, ideally a text file, so if you could find the right file you could access or change what you wanted. Systemd is a big program that manages a bunch of stuff and creates unique commands within its programs for doing so, which moves away from that principle and turns system management into what feels a bit more microsofty (like the registry editor program vs editing config files, etc) and a lot of people don't like that. But to its credit, it does solve a few problems with cobbling together a modern system that doesn't suck.
Yes and no. Let me start by saying I use systemd and have never seen any of this as a problem big enough for me to switch.
The Unix philosophy is that a program should do one thing and do it well, the old init.d system did exactly that, but systemd does more than just start programs, for example there's the systemd-logind service which is used to authenticate users. Why is this a problem? Because some people don't want to use systemd, therefore they don't have logind, so if something were to depend on that, like GNOME's GDM did for a while, it would be impossible to use it without systemd. So in a way people complain about programs becoming dependant on systemd, and systemd grabbing more and more responsibilities to the point where it would become an integral part of Linux, it's not that systemd is a problem now, is that it has the potential to become so ingrained to everything that it becomes impossible to remove. But in the meantime systemd does provide some advantages, including parallelism which makes the computer boot faster.
Should you switch? Not really, this is more a philosophical debate on what Linux is and should be, I agree with all of the philosophical points and don't think programs should depend on systemd, but I don't think that's directly systemd's fault.
Keep systemd. People can cry all they like but it's the best init system we have right now. Unless you want to start building a better one, i guess.
Systemd is a large piece of software. There are ways to make it smaller and disable various modules for it, but usually by default it's very heavy.
With a traditional init system, it's just an init system, and you'll use other other programs to do the other things. This basically means a chain of interconnected bash scripts. Perhaps you'll run into some integration issues. Probably not though. It'll be mostly the same.
There is no real advantage to this from a user perspective beyond a philosophical one. Systemd works quite well at doing the things it tries to do, but it's the Unix philosophy to "do one thing and do it well," and some people care very deeply that systemd does not follow their interpretation of that philosophy, and that's certainly a fair reason to not use it.
However, if you're not having problems with using systemd, I'd say don't bother switching.
Systems is not the Unix philosophy, at least, not to me. It tries to handle so many different things and use cases. "One thing" normally means a small thing, and initialising everything you could ever think of is not a small thing.
Permanently Deleted
For desktops it doesn't make much sense, but now everything's so oriented to systemd its actually starting to affect embedded Linux applications... so lets try our best to keep the alternatives alive.
I'm not recommending non-systemd inits, but in a desktop usage, I never wrote a single script with MX Linux and Alpine. Their init system just works.
the only reason to stick to one of those init systems is that you already know everything about them and you dont want to relearn a bunch of stuff.
other than that i see 0 benefits to skip systemd
Is the experience of trying new distros very cool? yes
Should you abandon systemd? no
systemd is not bloated and it's not insecure. If you don't have any problems, don't switch (unless you wanna have some fun trying new things, if you do, run a vm).
systemd is insecure, bloated, etc
[Citation needed]
If a distro that doesn't use systemd ends up booting much faster or being much easier to configure, maybe those are features you care about. But switching away from systemd in this case is merely an implementation detail. What you're really doing is moving from a distro to another one that serves you better.
Otherwise, the choice of init system has very little impact to the average user. Maybe it's worth it to switch init systems if you hate the syntax of unit files and/or the interface of
systemctl/journalctland you use them often enough to warrant the effort. The people who want to use alternatives to systemd without having such a practical issue with it are doing so for philosophical reasons.The Artix folks cite sources for their opinions on systemd being bloated and insecure:
These are terrible sources. 3 random CVEs and opinions of randoms on the internet. The "sources" conflate arguments about systemd as an init system with the non-init parts and with criticisms of Poettering, and a lot of it is "this is bad" with no argument or, worse, incorrect arguments. If there is anything in there that actually proves something, link directly to it. I'm not going to shift through mountains of garbage to find it.
@patatahooligan @prettydarknwild keyword here is average users , else glibc hardly compares to musl
The biggest benefit would be to learn more about how unix systems work from the ground up. I'd say if you've had no problems ever with systemd then just stick to it. My linux usage predates systemd (by a lot) and I just want options kept open so I'm never forced onto it against my will.
Basically, if you do not see any reason to switch from systemd then you should not. The thing with systemd is that it is really big and complicated. If you just use defaults of your distro systemd works just fine, but if you want to (or have to) change something fundamental, then dealing with this monstrosity becomes a bit of pain. You basically end with the situation where you are in a war with your own PC. After some time of this, dealing with an init system that does exactly what you tell it to do feels refreshing. There is also the part, where some init systems (sysVinit and runit) boot faster then others (openRC and systemd), but it is not that significant. I use runit BTW. With my setup I spend much less time dealing with runit then I used to with systemd. That being said I still miss some of systemd features.
What distro do you use with runnit?
I, personally, use Void Linux, which is a 'flagship' runit distro. But if you want a bigger package repository, then devuan is also a good choice.
Void Linux
Too shit to fail.
If you have to ask, no.
I say this as someone who doesn't use systemd. There's not much benefit to it. It's cool to do if you're an enthusiast or experimentalist, but from a practical stand point, systemd is most practical.
I use gentoo with openRC btw.
I don't see any fundamental reason why systemd would be insecure. If anything, I would expect it to be less prone to security bugs than the conglomerations of shell scripts that used to be used for init systems.
The bloated argument seems to mostly come from people who don't understand systemd init is a separate thing from all the other systemd components. You can use just the init part and not the rest if you want. Also, systemd performs way better than the old init systems anyway. I suspect many of the those complaining online didn't really have first hand experience with the old init systems.
If a different init suits your needs better, then sure go with it. But for the vast majority of typical desktop/server stuff, systemd is probably the best option. That's why most distributions use it.
I don’t see any fundamental reason why systemd would be insecure.
You mean aside how the author answer to CVEs, right ?
If anything, I would expect it to be less prone to security bugs than the conglomerations of shell scripts that used to be used for init systems.
Not sure. In the end the shell script were just an easy and consistent way to start/stop programs. If the programs were secure (read: checked the input and sanitize it, did the check for permissions and so on) there is not a big difference.
Also, systemd performs way better than the old init systems anyway.
In what regards ? Boot faster ? Fine, but on a server it does not mean anything, a server does not reboot that often; for a desktop it not that the 5 seconds you gain are a fundamental gain.
One problem I see is with the logs: it is true that the format is documented, but a text format is always readable while a binary format... (been here, done that 🤬 )
I agree those CVE responses are not great. Those are from quite a few years ago though. Has their handling of CVEs improved since?
Boot times are not that big of a deal to me either, but some people seem to care about it a lot.
I've never personally had any problems with binary logs. You could always forward to a different logging daemon if that's a concern.
In what regards ? Boot faster ? Fine, but on a server it does not mean anything, a server does not reboot that often; for a desktop it not that the 5 seconds you gain are a fundamental gain.
Are you sure it doesn't mean anything? It means to a LOT of people.
Anyways are you aware of
systemd-analyzeand that you can profile your boot and services even with graphical representations? Have a look at https://www.apertis.org/guides/boot_optimisation/ and https://opensource.com/article/20/9/systemd-startup-configuration
Systemd vs anything else is mostly controversy, the outlet of a bunch of people that don't want Linux to evolve, become better and have more flexibility because it violates the UNIX philosophy and/or it is backed by big corp. Systemd was made to tackle a bunch of issues with poorly integrated tools and old architectures that aren't as good as they used to be. If you look at other operating systems. Even Apple has a better service manager (launchd) than what Linux had with init and friends.
Systemd is incredibly versatile and most people are unaware of its full potential. Apart from the obvious - start services - it can also run most of a base system with features such as networking (IPv4+IPV6, PBR), NTP, Timers (cron replacement), secure DNS resolutions, isolate processes, setup basic firewalls, port forwarding, centralize logging (in an easy way to query and read), monitor and restart services, detect hardware changes and react to them, mount filesystems, listen for connections in sockets and launch programs to handle incoming data, become your bootloader and... even run full fledged containers both privileged and non-privileged containers. Read this for more details: https://tadeubento.com/2023/systemd-hidden-gems-for-a-better-linux/
The question isn't "what is the benefit of removing this init system", it is "what I'll be missing if I remove it". Although it is possible to do all the above without Systemd, you'll end up with a lot of small integration pains and dozens of processes and different tools all wasting resources.
The article you linked is really nifty! Are there any distros that are using all or nearly all of the features that systemd provides?
Yes, I wrote the article as a collections of thoughts and links of what I've learn about systemd over the years. The reality is that when Debian moved to systemd I wasn't that happy but after learning all it can do and the way it works I see it was the best move.
In Gentoo we can enable or disable most features via USE flag: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-apps/systemd
This enables the user to select how much (or little) of systemd is used on their system. It's also one of the few distros that enables you to switch init systems on a running system if you really want to.
That list of "features" never needed to be replaced by systemd and for the most part are provided by the other init offerings.
As for logging you may find yourself one with a system using systemd that has faced an error and cannot boot good luck reading the binary journal it makes, yes these entries can be pushed out to text file or syslog but if systemd falls over hard it will log to the default binary journal and you'll need to use another install with systemd to run journalctl --file /path/to/mounted/journal which in an emergency is a true PITA.
It is not an outlet for those who you choose to espouse as "People who don't want linux to evolve" far from it most of them just want systemd to stop trying to replace things that are not broken and for other projects to stop having it as a hard dependency. Yes it is modular, yes these can be disabled but it has so many tentacles that it is clear the intentions are wider than just being an init.
What's wrong with ip, iproute2, iptables/nftables, ufw, firewalld, ntp, dnscrypt, privoxy, dnsmasq, openresolve, crond, sudo, mount, syslog-ng?
Are they somehow obsolete now?
If you want a basic bootloader your UEFI has one built in and/or you can boot the kernel directly with efistub, systemd-boot is so basic it's pointless to the point that an unconfigured install of refind is a truckload better.
I get that this is a hot topic but waaay too many people are just adding pointless opinion and toxic opinion into this debate that doesn't help anyone make what they want is a decent informed choice and tbh when I see Gnome make a hard dependency of systemd it makes me think either systemd is doing too much, is not modular enough, devs got lazy or all of the above.
And a final FYI I use systemd and have disabled much of it but can't uninstall the parts I don't need/want.
That list of “features” never needed to be replaced by systemd and for the most part are provided by the other init offerings.
This is plain wrong. Init wasn't able to properly start things in parallel and monitor them. With systemd you can even create a visual representation graph of your boot services that you can use to identify what is taking more time and when things are happening.
What’s wrong with ip, iproute2, iptables/nftables, ufw, firewalld, ntp, dnscrypt, privoxy, dnsmasq, openresolve, crond, sudo, mount, syslog-ng?
What's wrong? Too many tools, way too fragmented and poorly integrated. It is very, very easy to get into trouble if you simply setup a dual stack system with IPv6-PD with those tools. With systemd it all works of the box with simples configuration files and its way more intuitive. For eg. cron is a mess, systemd timers share the unit config format which is way better and more scalable.
I use systemd and have disabled much of it
So you are saying you could just have a very small footprint and have a very lightweight system that is very solid but instead of choose to go with a bunch of different tools? I've leveraged systemd to be able to have fully working system on devices with 256MB of RAM while still having RAM for other important applications.
As someone who've tried Gentoo on systemd and OpenRC, as well as Void with runit, I don't see any reason to use OpenRC over systemd. I never noticed any performance difference, and it has far less features. As for runit, if half the boot time for half the features is what you need, then go for it.
No lol
Looks like there are some security, privacy and stability advantages. But for most people systemd should be fine.
See here for further info:
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/guides/linux-hardening.html#choosing-the-right-distro
https://forums.whonix.org/t/fixing-the-desktop-linux-security-model/9172/2
https://www.unixsheikh.com/articles/systemd-isnt-safe-to-run-anywhere.html
https://unixsheikh.com/articles/the-real-motivation-behind-systemd.html
https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/
https://without-systemd.org/wiki/index_php/Arguments_against_systemd/
https://nosystemd.org/Edit: also getting dnscrypt to work with systemd is pretty tough and unreliable in my experience (debian and opensuse). See here https://github.com/DNSCrypt/dnscrypt-proxy/wiki/Installation-linux
This could be a problem if you are planning to use encrypted dns.Yeap, it is always the same set of poorly researched links that get pasted in threads like this.
Unix philosophy, evil corporate interests, insecure, bloated, entangled mess... it is these individuals thatbhave seen the light, notnthe silent majority that does all the work in distributions and when developing software that kind of opted withbtheir feet.
not sure about the other ones, but "madaidan" (Kicksecure/Linux Hardening Guide) and Daniel Micay (Copperhead/GrapheneOS) are well known security researchers. See Daniel Micays take on Systemd:
https://old.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/bddq5u/os_security_ios_vs_grapheneos_vs_stock_android/ekzo6c0/
https://forums.whonix.org/t/fixing-the-desktop-linux-security-model/9172/2Suckless.org's take on systemd is pretty well researched. All sources inside.
Some other critics are Ted Tso, Torvalds, Volkerding (Slackware), ... See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-and-others-on-linuxs-systemd/
My understanding is that systemd goes against traditional unix philosophy, but that from an end users perspective it will generally be a much better experience.
I've heard some init systems are maybe faster, but it's a very minor improvement if true and you're giving up a lot of features for it.
systemd goes against traditional unix philosophy
It really doesn't, that's just propaganda. If systemd goes against the Unix philosophy due to having multiple binaries, by that logic so does coreutils.
Short answer: if you're asking this, then it's not worth it.
Long answer: Ditching systemd in favor of something else is usually an act of experimentation. Folks that do it usually have had a negative experience with systemd, be it in its usage or from a problem they had that prevented them to boot their computers due to the tightly-coupled relationship between mainstream distros and systemd.
Also, preference is involved here, so you might prefer to assemble your system with independent pieces instead of a full-blown suite like systemd's. You might also not like systemd's UX so, as a user, you end up wanting to try something else.
The complaints are just a meme at this point. If you have to ask, don't bother.
If you have to ask, the benefits of another init system than systemd starts and stops at "you look smart." I like runit a lot and would even recommend Void Linux as a daily driver if that's your speed, but honestly anyone who actually was around before systemd knew how much sysvinit and co sucked.
This or https://artixlinux.org/ are the only options which come to mind and make some form of sense.
If you are willing to learn more about linux, I think its a good practice to try a distro with a different init system than d. Thats one of the reasons I have void linux on my home laptop.
Do it for the lulz
If you want to try living without systemd, take a look at voidlinux - it uses runit instead. I made the jump from Fedora recently and I love it! Linux is once again the unix system I loved for 40+ years - it's rational, easy to understand and just works! As an added bonus, I do believe I get about 50% more life out of the battery (less busy-work going on?). What do I miss from systemd? Nothing really.
Before switching to Guix I ran Void Linux for years. It's a very nice, light and quick distribution. The BSD of Linux if you will.
Can very much recommend it.
The things with init systems is as an average user you don't really realize they're there. Whether it's SystemD or something else and I wouldn't worry too much about them.
You get to feel superior.
Not sure about the security, but recently I've tried runit on a very old laptop with HDD and it took waaay much less to fully boot up than a clean Arch32 with systemd
To make a long story short, many feel that Systemd has moved away from the Unix philosophy of "Make each program do one thing well".
Basically, it's about the pureness of the Unix spirit.
You could always dual boot or use a vm.
Watch this 45 minute video first so you understand why systemd was developed and implemented https://youtu.be/o_AIw9bGogo?feature=shared
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/o_AIw9bGogo?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
This is actually a great talk on systemd by a BSD dev; highly recommended.
@BCsven @prettydarknwild This is a good video, and I’m not a developer.
Just install Void. It's the only non-shit distro.
As someone that has had a terrible experience with Void, specifically related to Runit, I disagree.