352
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by pglpm@lemmy.ca to c/linux@programming.dev

The latest changes implemented in the Systemd repo, related to or prompted by age-verification laws, have made many people unhappy (I suppose links about this aren't necessary). This has led to a surge in Systemd forks during the last days ("surge" because there have always been plenty of forks). Here are some forks that explicitly mention those changes as their reason for forking (rough time ordering taken from the fork page):

Hopefully the energy of this reaction won't be scattered among too many alternatives, although some amount of scattering is always good.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] teft@piefed.social 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

There plenty of distros that don’t use systemd.

Slackware and Mint DE come to mind.

Because systemd isn’t required for Linux. It’s just one popular init system.

[-] bootleg@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

Slight correction: I think you're mixing up LMDE with Peppermint OS.

[-] mereo@piefed.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This like comes from distrowatch. Yes means the distro is using systemd:

  • 1 CachyOS: Yes
  • 2 Linux Mint: Yes
  • 3 MX Linux: Optional
  • 4 Pop!_OS: Yes
  • 5 Debian: Yes
  • 6 Zorin OS Yes
  • 7 EndeavourOS: Yes
  • 8 Manjaro: Yes
  • 9 Fedora: Yes
  • 10 Ubuntu: Yes
  • 11 AnduinOS: Yes
  • 12 openSUSE: Yes
  • 13 Bazzite: Yes
  • 14 Nobara: Yes
  • 15 Arch Linux: Yes
  • 16 elementary OS: Yes
  • 17 antiX: No
  • 18 NixOS: Yes

As we can see, the major popular distros use systemd.

[-] teft@piefed.social 22 points 2 weeks ago

You said it’s part of Linux. Which it isn’t. Just because some popular distros use it doesn’t mean it’s required.

[-] mereo@piefed.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

Changing to another init requires major re-engineering and it's not easy.

[-] teft@piefed.social 15 points 2 weeks ago

If they could switch to systemd in the 2010s they can switch away from it in the 2020s if they really wanted to.

[-] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 2 weeks ago

Have you tried it?

It may surprise you how non-non-trivial it is.

Major re-engineering can stand down. ;)

[-] hornedfiend@sopuli.xyz 10 points 2 weeks ago

I use Void which has runit by default. you don't need systemd, like at all.

[-] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

So your claim is both that the Linux kernel operates perfectly fine without systemd for certain distros, and also that the Linux kernel is heavily dependent on systemd and it would be difficult to re-engineer to work otherwise. Do I understand your argument correctly?

[-] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 2 weeks ago

Distrowatch page clicks is a weak measure, and not even one that corroborates the point you're trying to make with your circular definition, with examples that do not.

"major". So funny trying to pomp it up.

https://distrowatch.com/search.php?defaultinit=Not+systemd&status=Active shows plenty active distros don't. Some of them are "major", as in [independent and] having been around the longest.

Not that an appeal to tradition's any more sound reasoning than circular argument and (unsound) argumentum populum. These are not the relevant criteria. All red-herring stuff.

this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
352 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

13191 readers
130 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS