Linux

I mean, is systemd giving YOU problems? If not, don’t switch just because other people complain about it

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.

Switch to sysvinit and you'll understand the benefit of systemd

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.)

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.

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/journalctl and 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The complaints are just a meme at this point. If you have to ask, don't bother.

Do it for the lulz

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.

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.