C
compis2
Guest
I have found that Mx-linux uses a Sysvinit by default but also uses System D with the system only running or booting up with Sysvinit. what would be the reason for a linux system to run 2 different init systems?
Init system
- Thread starter compis2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- init
- Status
G'day @compis2 and welcome to linux.org 
You'd have to ask MX Linux that, or search under eg
mx linux systemd vs sysvinit
or similar
If you have a Grub Menu and it features an option
Advanced Options
you can click that and find an entry for systemd booting
Cheers
Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
BTW moving this to Debian and derivatives as not a security question.
You'd have to ask MX Linux that, or search under eg
mx linux systemd vs sysvinit
or similar
If you have a Grub Menu and it features an option
Advanced Options
you can click that and find an entry for systemd booting
Cheers
Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
BTW moving this to Debian and derivatives as not a security question.
It's been a few years for most of the mainstream distro's now. But there was a time when almost all distro's did this.
Mostly for backwards compatibility, but also because everything wasn't ported over to systemd yet.
From what I read and understand Systemd is supposed to be a better way of controlling how everything works in Linux.
I've used both Systemd and Sysvinit and TBH really didn't notice any difference as both systems performed excellent.
When Systemd was released OMG the old hard core Linux users pitched a fit and now rarely hear a complaint about Systemd.
I don't like change although change is inevitable and I'm not afraid to try new things or new ways.
MX provides choice, the user can go either way. It's non-discriminatory
wendy-lebaron
Active Member
A few months ago I just chose MX Linux with "Bullseye" base with Fluxbox. I can't be worried whether or not it has "systemd". It looks like it doesn't. So this is sort of a weird comment by the topic starter.
What I know is that I have other Linux OS's based on Debian which all have "systemd" and some of them boot faster than a few of them I have seen with a different startup system. Especially "runit". Void Linux made me hate "runit". I don't know, I then saw it on Devuan and see the messages crawling around on the screen was something I wasn't going for. I have to deal with Slackware and Slackel booting rather slowly, so I don't care if the old "sysvinit" is really better.
(I read somewhere about "haveged" capability being included in Linux kernel v6, or something like that. I have noticed Slackware still set up to start "haveged" which is beginning to annoy me. Is this being done for real, or is this another message to tease?)
Many months ago I was checking out Redcore, which is based on Gentoo. Kept getting "Clock skew detected!" which easily irritated me out of "OpenRC" init system. It was understandable why it was available from the installer for Devuan "Chimaera" but that installer was recommending me to go for "runit" instead.
I'm bothered by the messages from "systemd" for Debian "Bookworm" base being "longer", a mix of the older "green" messages and those offered by Ubuntu with the "dot-services". I liked the simpler times with those messages. One thing that often produces hate with "systemd" is when it goes into one of its "jobs" and holds for several minutes. However, this once taught me a lesson that I should really really and finally find an internal SSD to install Linux into, rather than trying to use any junk external drive that is too slow to hold an entire operating system. This actually happened to me with EndeavourOS GNOME before the D.E. v44 upgrade during the spring.
What I know is that I have other Linux OS's based on Debian which all have "systemd" and some of them boot faster than a few of them I have seen with a different startup system. Especially "runit". Void Linux made me hate "runit". I don't know, I then saw it on Devuan and see the messages crawling around on the screen was something I wasn't going for. I have to deal with Slackware and Slackel booting rather slowly, so I don't care if the old "sysvinit" is really better.
(I read somewhere about "haveged" capability being included in Linux kernel v6, or something like that. I have noticed Slackware still set up to start "haveged" which is beginning to annoy me. Is this being done for real, or is this another message to tease?)
Many months ago I was checking out Redcore, which is based on Gentoo. Kept getting "Clock skew detected!" which easily irritated me out of "OpenRC" init system. It was understandable why it was available from the installer for Devuan "Chimaera" but that installer was recommending me to go for "runit" instead.
I'm bothered by the messages from "systemd" for Debian "Bookworm" base being "longer", a mix of the older "green" messages and those offered by Ubuntu with the "dot-services". I liked the simpler times with those messages. One thing that often produces hate with "systemd" is when it goes into one of its "jobs" and holds for several minutes. However, this once taught me a lesson that I should really really and finally find an internal SSD to install Linux into, rather than trying to use any junk external drive that is too slow to hold an entire operating system. This actually happened to me with EndeavourOS GNOME before the D.E. v44 upgrade during the spring.
Yes, I read that before I posted. I left it out at that time, to see what the OP came back with.
The codicil to the (2017) Wiki article is
... which some consider useful. I do not know if that has changed since the article was posted, as I use MX OOTB.
Off Topic, perhaps, but you can change that by modifying two (2) lines in /etc/systemd/system.conf under [Manager] and un-commenting them.
Code:
#DefaultTimeoutStartSec=90s
#DefaultTimeoutStopSec=90sI usually change mine to
Code:
DefaultTimeoutStartSec=20s
DefaultTimeoutStopSec=20sThe changes apply to startup and to shutdown, and can be used across virtually all Linux distros.
Wizard
As it should be OOTB is the best way to run any Linux distro imo.
They have a pretty active community. While making assumptions is a bad idea, if it has changed in the past six years they might have thought to update the wiki page.
OP
compis2
Guest
Why does mx linux have an option for systemD if there default Init system is not system D ? Is there any other distro that allows booting to another Init system ?G'day @compis2 and welcome to linux.org
You'd have to ask MX Linux that, or search under eg
mx linux systemd vs sysvinit
or similar
If you have a Grub Menu and it features an option
Advanced Options
you can click that and find an entry for systemd booting
Cheers
Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
BTW moving this to Debian and derivatives as not a security question.
OP
compis2
Guest
Please give an example of a distro that gives the option to boot from one Init system to another. I have never seen any distros that do this.
OP
compis2
Guest
The point is mx-linux default is sysvinit but still actively support systemd on a running sysvinit system. But more importantly why would you have another init system like system D unless your default sysvinit cannot do the job.
@compis2 - I note that you have questions still open on this subject at both Bleeping Computer and LinuxQuestions.org
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/789526/mx-linux-non-systemd/?hl=+sysvinit#entry5582530
and
https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?p=6465070#post6465070
At both of those venues, you have resisted accepting advice or answers freely given by their volunteer Members.
Do you think that you will get any further with starting such a thread here?
At LinuxQuestions, you also stated
If they cannot answer it, we cannot answer it.
Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/789526/mx-linux-non-systemd/?hl=+sysvinit#entry5582530
and
https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?p=6465070#post6465070
At both of those venues, you have resisted accepting advice or answers freely given by their volunteer Members.
Do you think that you will get any further with starting such a thread here?
At LinuxQuestions, you also stated
If they cannot answer it, we cannot answer it.
Chris Turner
wizardfromoz
You don't boot into one mode or another. It's just the process manager that the system uses.
I use Fedora 39, which has had systemd for several years, but it still has support for init.d
and rcinit run levels.
Exactly. I guess my question is... why wouldn't you want to use it? ( I'm not asking osprey, that's a rhetorical question to the
opposers ).
wendy-lebaron
Active Member
"Because 'systemd' is much more than an 'init' system."
Maybe the fear or hatred is such to an extent where somebody tries a Linux OS that clearly indicates it doesn't carry "systemd" but then he/she is fooled into believing "systemd" is being involved somewhere.
Look, MX Linux is quite popular. Obviously this is well known: it ranks first on Distrowatch for "HPD" (distro page hits per day), if that makes any sense. The distro gets reviews regularly on that site on its page -- most of them are favorable. Do you think it would be this way if it carried "systemd" or if it made any attempt to use it?
But the distro in second place, which is Linux Mint, does employ the startup system that has produced a lot of written resentment in a lot of places that talk about Linux, which I have never understood. Yes it is a hog controlled by "big interests" but there's no helping it and they are trying to give us a quality product. I used to resent the popularity of MX Linux but no longer. It's quite good and otherwise, I prefer a Linux OS that boots a bit faster with "systemd" and all.
Maybe the fear or hatred is such to an extent where somebody tries a Linux OS that clearly indicates it doesn't carry "systemd" but then he/she is fooled into believing "systemd" is being involved somewhere.
Look, MX Linux is quite popular. Obviously this is well known: it ranks first on Distrowatch for "HPD" (distro page hits per day), if that makes any sense. The distro gets reviews regularly on that site on its page -- most of them are favorable. Do you think it would be this way if it carried "systemd" or if it made any attempt to use it?
But the distro in second place, which is Linux Mint, does employ the startup system that has produced a lot of written resentment in a lot of places that talk about Linux, which I have never understood. Yes it is a hog controlled by "big interests" but there's no helping it and they are trying to give us a quality product. I used to resent the popularity of MX Linux but no longer. It's quite good and otherwise, I prefer a Linux OS that boots a bit faster with "systemd" and all.
OP
compis2
Guest
Where is the answer ??? You seem to want to spend time examining who placed the question. Why don't you tell us how you went about searching other posts ?
If there is an answer for this possible security issue I would love to hear it. A proper answer would give a proof on how a file directory size can be changed, so everyone can accept the answer. Not someone like you saying its right because I had time to search other forums and report nothing.
OP
compis2
Guest
Mx-linux does allow you to boot into another system init. When you start mxlinux it starts with sysvinit but you can boot into Grub and start using System D. I have not seen any other distribution do this, and that is what I was asking an example.
There are somewhere around 400 to 500 Linux distros available, with more in the wild.
You may invest as much time as you like searching for another like MX Linux, but we do not have the time nor the resources.
I run over 80 Linux, but MX is the only example I have that provides the option of either.
As I said above, of the MX Linux forum
I suggest you dial back on the attitude, too.
Wizard
- Status
