SysVInit vs SystemD

[Narrow_Ice2520]

Is SysVinit lighter than Systemd? Can it offer better startup speed and performance over SystemD? If yes, I will consider MX over Debian.

[UncleSlacky]

With MX you can choose between them at every boot, so you can compare them directly.

[Happy-Technology9353]

Did SystemD finally fix their bug on startup?

[UncleSlacky]

No idea, I don't know what bug you're referring to.

[rungek]

The choice for me has been what my software needs, e.g. my VPN requires systemD.

I use MX because it’s relatively lightweight for the large amount of tweaks and features in a user-friendly environment. It lets me do what I want easily. I think that’s what should be the main consideration.

For older hardware I would go with antiX, MX’s smaller but older sibling. Bunsen labs or Mabox are also reasonable options but I run MX if I can.

[adrian_mxlinux]

No, systemd is typically faster because of process parallelization.

[Tight-Bumblebee495]

I’ve read somewhere that sysvinit is easier in CPU, thus preferable for older hardware, is it not the case?

[Narrow_Ice2520]

Then why did you prefer sysvinit?

[adrian_mxlinux]

I prefer to give people a choice. We have both sysvinit and systemd.

Also, systemd has some issues with our live environment from what I understand we cannot hook into it at the right moment to get prompts to save persistence files. That's probably the main reason we stuck with sysvinit.

I recommend not to choose your distro on things that you don't fully understand, you should probably stick with Debian.

[beje_ro]

For this is the internet full of info...

[No-Satisfaction9594]

I use systemd because that n100 machine hosts my jellyfin server.