Init system

[wendy-lebaron]

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.

You're absolutely right, because there is no distro that could do such a thing. It would have to be arranged with MX Linux being in session and using a "virtual machine" within MX Linux to load the other Linux OS which has "systemd". This could work just as well using Artix, Devuan, Slackware or some other without "systemd" being the "host" of Oracle software or other such product.

Before GRUB or any other bootloader there is no init system going on. Because the bootloader has to actually load the kernel and the "initramfs" which includes the init system. How in the world is it going to come up with an init system before one could access a menu giving the user the option of operating system to boot into? If your statement were true, that "sysvinit" loads before GRUB, we would have that and then starting MacOS or Windows, as well. Which is just not true. Remember how Windows wants to be the only one and goes to great lengths to do it...

Someone please correct me on this if it's needed.

 

[charlie.corder]

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.

Looks like it's time for you to back down a little bit.
Cool your jets youngster.
Old Geezer

 

[f33dm3bits]

what would be the reason for a linux system to run 2 different init systems?

Maybe to give you choice and to have a unique selling point that differs from all the other distributions. That's just a guess but you would have to ask them, maybe someone on r/MXLinux knows?

 

[compis2]

You did not understand the question. i asked how many distro support both sysvinit and systemd

 

[wizardfromoz]

... and the answer is - nobody knows.

Wizard

 

[compis2]

You're absolutely right, because there is no distro that could do such a thing. It would have to be arranged with MX Linux being in session and using a "virtual machine" within MX Linux to load the other Linux OS which has "systemd". This could work just as well using Artix, Devuan, Slackware or some other without "systemd" being the "host" of Oracle software or other such product.

Before GRUB or any other bootloader there is no init system going on. Because the bootloader has to actually load the kernel and the "initramfs" which includes the init system. How in the world is it going to come up with an init system before one could access a menu giving the user the option of operating system to boot into? If your statement were true, that "sysvinit" loads before GRUB, we would have that and then starting MacOS or Windows, as well. Which is just not true. Remember how Windows wants to be the only one and goes to great lengths to do it...

Someone please correct me on this if it's needed.

That would of been my orignal thinging as well. But if you examine Mx-linux you will see that there is an option to boot to systemd even though sysvinit is the default. if you look at there forum and search they will refer to booting to system d in from the grub menu.
My workstation although it is booting up using sysvinit there are processes using system D like /lib/systemd/systemd-logind and /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd. I do not know why these are using system D

 

[Condobloke]

This topic over at MX Linux was still going after 11 pages in 2019

The posters were obviously exhausted and saw no point in pursuing it further.

I feel exactly the same.

Nobody knows (the only possible exception being a developer/engineer etc etc at MX LINUX

The question needs to be asked there

After all, why would you ask such a question here when it does not relate to our usual range of topics (we do not have a subsection for mx linux)....and the vast majority of the membership are quite disinterested.

 

[wizardfromoz]

That's just a guess but you would have to ask them, maybe someone on r/MXLinux knows?

@f33dm3bits I believe he may have asked there already

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/comments/17n3wdg

Wizard

 

[Condobloke]

One of the participants over at reddit.....Majestic-Skirt7677 .....their account has been suspended.

I note that you have been asking the same question/s over at https://www.linuxquestions.org/ , compis....as recently as november 16, 2023 ......No definite conclusions there either.

 

[wizardfromoz]

... and then there is https://www.reddit.com/user/Glittering_Union8527/

on the same subject, also suspended.

Thread was

https://www.reddit.com/r/MXLinux/comments/15tg5hf

Talk about beating a dead horse.

 

[f33dm3bits]

You did not understand the question. i asked how many distro support both sysvinit and systemd

No your original question was this.

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?

Then later in the topic you asked the same thing again.

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 ?

It wasn't until about halfway through you asked a question that went in that direction but didn'd ask that.

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.

The later you ask the same question as your original question again but branching of your original question.

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.

Then later respond to someone else talking about MX Linux and systemd and MX LInux.

That would of been my orignal thinging as well. But if you examine Mx-linux you will see that there is an option to boot to systemd even though sysvinit is the default. if you look at there forum and search they will refer to booting to system d in from the grub menu.
My workstation although it is booting up using sysvinit there are processes using system D like /lib/systemd/systemd-logind and /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd. I do not know why these are using system D

It wasn't until you responded to me that you started talking about that you wanted to know how many distributions support both systemd en systemV.

You did not understand the question. i asked how many distro support both sysvinit and systemd

So maybe you should have phrased your question better because 99% in the topic says something different.

But like @wizardfromoz nobody knows how many distributions use both systemD and systemV, because there isn't a central database that keeps records of that, not even Distrowatch.

 

[dos2unix]

Systemd – MX Linux

mxlinux.org

It does appear that sysV init is the "default" in MX Linux.

MX Linux ships with systemd present but sysVinit is still the default init system by default. Thanks to the systemd-shim system, users can choose to boot installed systems whichever way they choose.

The systemd argument is largely an argument about the Unix philosophy:

Write programs that do one thing and do it well.
Write programs to work together.
Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface.

Some people feel that Systemd doesn’t follow that philosophy very well.

I personally couldn't disagree more. I find systemd easier, more powerful, and more flexible, not to mention
generally more reliable. But to each his own.

Up until recently, a lot of distro's supported both. So I'm still not sure why you would need one mode or the other.
I believe Fedora 38 or 39 was the first version not to support sysV, and now doesn't support it at all.
Like it or not, most mainstream distro's have gone this way for a reason.

Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Alma, Rocky, SuSE, Redhat, Oracle, CentOS, Arch and Debian have all gone over to the
systemd side. I suspect MX will follow soon.

 

[compis2]

Systemd – MX Linux

mxlinux.org

It does appear that sysV init is the "default" in MX Linux.





I personally couldn't disagree more. I find systemd easier, more powerful, and more flexible, not to mention
generally more reliable. But to each his own.

Up until recently, a lot of distro's supported both. So I'm still not sure why you would need one mode or the other.
I believe Fedora 38 or 39 was the first version not to support sysV, and now doesn't support it at all.
Like it or not, most mainstream distro's have gone this way for a reason.

Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Alma, Rocky, SuSE, Redhat, Oracle, CentOS, Arch and Debian have all gone over to the
systemd side. I suspect MX will follow soon.

I agree!!
I am looking to this forum to see if anyone can explain what the possible reason could be to run 2 Init systems beacuse I can't think of one, other that to perform a unwanted actions while running another process that a user will not investigate since they do not expect another init running.

 

[f33dm3bits]

I am looking to this forum to see if anyone can explain what the possible reason could be to run 2 Init systems beacuse I can't think of one, other that to perform a unwanted actions while running another process that a user will not investigate since they do not expect another init running.

Only one init system can be active at a time, from the MX Linux wiki about why there are two init systems available for MX Linux.

MX Linux ships with systemd present but sysVinit is still the default init system by default. Thanks to the systemd-shim system, users can choose to boot installed systems whichever way they choose.

Systemd – MX Linux

mxlinux.org

Maybe to give you choice and to have a unique selling point that differs from all the other distributions.

So as I already mentioned they give you the option of two init systems so you can choose which ever one you want to use.

 

[Aristarchus]

Gentoo and LFS also provide SysV and SystemD. These are the ones I know of, maybe there is more.

 

[wizardfromoz]

Gentoo and LFS also provide SysV and SystemD....

More precisely, Gentoo use OpenRC, which is closely related to sysvinit. sysvinit invokes the OpenRC Service Manager, which then becomes responsible for the rc subsystem.

I didn't know about LFS offering the choice, so thanks for the tip, makes sense though.

I have Gentoo-based Calculate Linux in my stable, and it includes by default in its /etc/default/grub

# Append parameters to the linux kernel command line
# Examples:
#
# Boot with network interface renaming disabled
# GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="net.ifnames=0"
#
# Boot with systemd instead of sysvinit (openrc)
# GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="init=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd"

...so you can uncomment that bottom, uodate grub and reboot to run under systemd.

An intermediate to advanced user can see that you could add a field to Advanced options in your Grub Menu to perform the same as MX does, or indeed add an entry to your Grub Menu using a file in /etc/grub.d/

Wizard

 

[Aristarchus]

That is correct, Gentoo uses OpenRC. Very nice distro. I had to abandon Gentoo because it took too much time to compile every update. On laptop - mobile this is not feasible.
Having two init systems is very useful from learning stand point. So I appreciate the effort of dual init distros.

 

[wizardfromoz]

Having two init systems is very useful from learning stand point. So I appreciate the effort of dual init distros.

Totally agree . I will take the bull by the horns and install Gentoo itself some day, the question is that time factor.

Wizard

 

[wendy-lebaron]

I suspect MX will follow soon.

I hope not. The distro is quite popular and a move like this would alienate a lot of people, such that they would dump their "Wildflower" and older installations in protest.

Solus/SerpentOS does have "systemd" and this is understandable by their determination to replace "X-dot-org" protocol with Wayland. Even on XFCE.

I should have gone further with Paldo but I think that also features "systemd", since it comes only with stock GNOME.

Pretty much all RPM-based distributions(*) except PCLinuxOS have "systemd". It's pretty much established.

(*) What I mean is the package format. It doesn't mean "directly related to RHEL" such as Fedora or Springdale, which are like cousins. It also means a Linux OS which has had some relation to the old Mandrake/Mandriva. It includes Mageia and ROSA, which along with Fedora are like kinsmen.

 

[Aristarchus]

I hope not. The distro is quite popular and a move like this would alienate a lot of people, such that they would dump their "Wildflower" and older installations in protest.

Solus/SerpentOS does have "systemd" and this is understandable by their determination to replace "X-dot-org" protocol with Wayland. Even on XFCE.

I should have gone further with Paldo but I think that also features "systemd", since it comes only with stock GNOME.

Pretty much all RPM-based distributions(*) except PCLinuxOS have "systemd". It's pretty much established.

(*) What I mean is the package format. It doesn't mean "directly related to RHEL" such as Fedora or Springdale, which are like cousins. It also means a Linux OS which has had some relation to the old Mandrake/Mandriva. It includes Mageia and ROSA, which along with Fedora are like kinsmen.

Systemd is not needed either for Wayland nor for Gnome. The use of systemd nowadays results from a mix of herd instinct, convenience and power play by REHL.
Desktop users for most part will not notice any difference.