Systemd on archlinux

New_Explorer · 2026-03-26 04:28:21

Are the Arch developers planning/working on making the OS not that dependent on systemd, or at least enabling the users to freely use alternatives without needing to ditch official packages? Artix linux is proof that it is possible, and it should be something for the experienced/advanced user to change.

5hridhyan · 2026-03-26 04:42:36

Artix linux is proof that it is possible

It is possible, but "possible" doesn't mean it's officially supported or maintenance-free. If you check the Artix news, they recently dropped GNOME support entirely because GNOME 49 removed non-systemd fallback paths even as recently as Feb 2026, basic user services broke due to elogind regressions, since Arch packages are compiled with systemd integration in mind, using alternatives means you are constantly working against upstream packaging assumptions, you are free to experiment, but expect a lot of manual intervention that the official Arch repos aren't designed to handle.

schard · 2026-03-26 06:48:00

This discussion is old and Arch Linux has migrated to systemd over a decade ago. An init system is tightly coupled to other parts of the system and thus, providing alternative init systems, which require separate configuration for system daemons is a huge maintenance overhead.
I do not know which plethora of different init systems Artix supports, and frankly I don't care, because if I did, I'd probably be using it instead of Arch Linux.
If you want to use another init system in your Linux distribution, just use another one, such as Artix.

Also you're always free to use other init systems on your Arch Linux system. You'd just need to maintain it yourself. That's what Arch Linux's package build system is for.
But your implied request to the maintainers to provide to you an alternative init system, because not having one supported and shipped to you by others is impeding your freedom, is, mildly speaking, presumptuous.

Edit: Regarding the critique on my choice of words, yes, systemd is actually a system layer, which includes, but is not limited to an init system.

Last edited by schard (2026-03-26 14:33:11)

seth · 2026-03-26 08:27:11

schard wrote:

An init system systemd is tightly coupled to other parts of the system systemd and gnome

Ftfy
(This is actually absolutely not normal or how any system has ever behaved before systemd - which is a main aspect of the criticism hurled at it)

not having one supported and shipped to you by others is impeding your freedom

is not what

enabling the users to freely use alternatives without needing to ditch official packages

says.
I am not able to freely (at will) switch out the init system like my default $SHELL but that does not impede my freedom (as rather abstract concept) at all.
I am not able to freely (at will) change my handedness like my haircut but that does not impede my freedom (to learn how to masturbate with the other hand) at all.
These things are not contradictory.

Everything2067 · 2026-03-26 09:54:20

You are always free to choose any init system you want on your system. But the thing is only systemd is officially supported in Arch, and thus official packages are more systemd focussed. If Arch were to support other init systems, then you could expect most official packages supporting other init systems too.
However, because of the same reason, I wouldn't recommend using anything other than systemd on Arch because of lack of packages which support other init systems. You can sort of replace systemd components with alternatives (like elogind for replacing logind), but you should use a distro other than Arch which supports other init systems, like Artix or Gentoo. Or you can always maintain alternate versions of existing packages on the AUR which can support other init systems.

Edit: karabaja4, I have edited my post. Thank you for reminding me that

Last edited by Everything2067 (2026-03-26 10:05:51)

karabaja4 · 2026-03-26 09:58:20

I find it interesting that people refer to systemd as "init system", when it's anything but If it were just an init system this conversation wouldn't exist.

Last edited by karabaja4 (2026-03-26 10:24:56)

NidoBr · 2026-03-26 12:41:39

Systemd was never meant to be "just an init", but rather a full service infrastructure, init is only one part of it.
It’s a modern approach to integration and standardization, though of course it’s not perfect.

I still use other inits when it makes sense.

V1del · 2026-03-26 16:42:28

http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/

karabaja4 · 2026-03-26 16:49:41

V1del wrote:

http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/

HTTPS however is a choice

reiikz · 2026-03-27 00:35:20

As someone who knows systemd as "that thing that handles services" and "sometimes also does other things like networking" please enlighten me;
¿Why do people even care?
I mean systemd does all it needs to do and it does it well.
¿What arguments do people have to choose one over the other?

ewaller · 2026-03-27 00:40:58

My only argument against systemd is its tight coupling to Linux. Last I checked, it ignored BSD and friends causing fragmentation in the Not Windows world. Never-the-less. I've come to accept it.

seth · 2026-03-27 07:57:19

I mean systemd does all it needs to do

sometimes also does other things

is actually one of the main criticisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception

and

and it does it well

is also something a lot of people would not necessarily subscribe to
https://ewontfix.com/15/
And don't get me started on the many levels resolved is horrible
journald is still not good at handling message spam.
Not sure whether run0 was thought wrong, sold wrong or reported wrong
… the list for this goes on and on.

The charge is that systemd tries to do *everything* - and most of it is flawed/bad/wrong.

And then there's of course the lennart-factor
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/06/1 … philosophy

ewaller wrote:

My only argument against systemd is its tight coupling to Linux.

If I should pick *one* thing that's fundamentally wrong w/ systemd it's the moloch of a kitchen sink that is libsystemd, the thing that nearly brought us the xz-disaster.
Conceptually I'm not a big fan of state machines because they simply don't scale - they never have and never will.

Arch Linux

#1 2026-03-26 04:28:21

Systemd on archlinux

#2 2026-03-26 04:42:36

Re: Systemd on archlinux

#3 2026-03-26 06:48:00

Re: Systemd on archlinux

#4 2026-03-26 08:27:11

Re: Systemd on archlinux

#5 2026-03-26 09:54:20

Re: Systemd on archlinux

#6 2026-03-26 09:58:20

Re: Systemd on archlinux

#7 2026-03-26 12:41:39

Re: Systemd on archlinux

#8 2026-03-26 16:42:28

Re: Systemd on archlinux

#9 2026-03-26 16:49:41

Re: Systemd on archlinux

#10 2026-03-27 00:35:20

Re: Systemd on archlinux

#11 2026-03-27 00:40:58

Re: Systemd on archlinux

#12 2026-03-27 07:57:19

Re: Systemd on archlinux

Board footer