linuxmemes

Because they can.

• OpenRC just feels nice
• Runit is simple
• S6 is really fucking fast
• Some distros (e.g. Guix, Void, Gentoo) come with non-systemd init systems by default, but I use them for other reasons

As for why I sometimes use musl, I like BSD. Also, Alpine Linux uses it by default, and most glibc software I've tried works just fine with gcompat.

I had to debug dns issues with a wm. Was disgusted what Systemd all does what it shouldn't.

Musl was fine until i had to install the one blob most people hate and love, Steam.

I use distros with systemd but damn, pretty soon it's not gnu/linux anymore, it'll be systemd/linux. systemd already manages services, bootloader, dns and networking. Maybe they'll replace coreutils next and the transition is completed.

I like how simple and fast runit is. And the added security is nice.

Gentoo comes with OpenRC as default so I roll with it. And it's simple and it works.

Plus the idea of having to randomly wait for some obscure stuff to block for a minute the boot/shutdown is not my thing.

Makes me feel smarter and my system boots slightly faster... yeah

People that complain about people not running systemd. Why does it bother you so much? :P

SysV init works more reliably, is smaller, does just one job and is much, much better architected.

SystemD tends to fail if you do anything out of the ordinary, is massively bloated, has it's claws into far too many parts of the system, is IMHO poorly architected, the many of the individual components are poorly designed and the whole thing is a huge, and utterly unnecessary, attack surface.

SystemD is probably adaquate if you just want to use your machine in the most basic way, but as soon as you try to do anything beyond that you start running into the rough edges and bad design decisions that it's plagued with.

The developer of SystemD was mildly rude to some people back in 2009

That means everything he makes is pure evil by definition and explanations as to why it's bad will be invented post-hoc to make it make sense.

I can actually configure and understand everything the UNIX way, which is actually important to me, because I do some wacky shit with my system + I'm a developer, I physically need to understand my system so I can debug it when it starts to eat shit

Although, seriously, if you're not a developer and don't intend on doing something specific with your system, just pick a mainstream distro and roll. I install Mint MATE or Ubuntu on my secondary systems too.

At this point i don't care anymore if my system has systemd or whatever, as long it's works i don't have complaint
Maybe back when I'm still young i will agree with majority linux enthusiasm that systemd is bloat, GUI is bloat, or whatever. But now as long it's work & can do job properly i don't care or even care

"we would never use such a sucky piece of bloatware near anywhere we cared about security."

I'm not an anti-systemd extremist. I use Void because it is a simple distro that doesn't break as often as Arch does, while also being very up-to-date.

I do have some things I dislike about systemd though which is why I will continue avoiding it in the future.

• It doesn't follow the Unix Philosophy. This is a big problem for me, I want to be able to switch out different parts of my system as I please. Systemd is a collection of projects that are all so deeply integrated that you can't use them without also running the Systemd init system. And now Desktop Environments are starting to depend on Logind for example and there's no alternative for non-systemd users. (Except Elogind but that's just Logind ripped out of SystemD)
• It's bloated and has many features I don't use. I just need an init system to start all my services at boot and restart them if they fail. Nothing more

Also using a Distro without Systemd is not really that hard

By importance, descending:

First, I don't like people promoting systemd. I don't need it more than other init systems. It's about picking the right group.

Second, I want a simple distribution so I use Void, which famously uses runit. It's about being lazy.

Third, I don't like the idea of it sprouting dependencies which it shouldn't. It's about paranoia. See recent news with a backdoor which wouldn't work if not for this.

Does Alpine Linux count as "running"?

SystemD just isn't necessary for every Linux install.

Linux has thousands of uses that aren't "running on bare metal on my customized gaming rig at my computer desk to play steam games and pretend to look like Mr. Robot"

My initial experience with Linux was without systemD and I didn't like it when Debian switched to it. Void is comfy enough.

Staying lean in my init is a hobby

Dunno...

Wanna ask my OpenWRT router that?

Also, is Android not Linux anymore?

Give this systemd lecture a watch it explains the why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo

Sysvinit on gentoo here. Its so simple and clean, all can be managed and hacked via bash scripts.

I see no benefits in my use cases for systemd. Boot speed is unneeded, service auto-restart is done via Monit, anything else I don't need.

This is true for all my server -and- all my workstations and laptops as well.

Systemd never solved a problem needed to be solved to start with.

Now that it also does coffee and cream for you, i start seeing some benefits like auto-restart services. Was it worthwhile? Meh, dunno.

At first it seemed another case of "I am too young and I want stuff done my way just because" and redhat shoved it down everybody throath to gain marked dominance. That they did.

At least now systemd looks like mature and finally start making sense. I was even contemplating testing a migration on one server.

Then I remembered, I like freedom of choice and keeping up being an old fart, so I didn't (yet).

(No, for Wayland and network manager I think they are both welcome and needed from the start).

It didn't help the main Dev suckass attitude, that didn't made friends.