I'm curious about the trade‑offs when swapping the default init system for an alternative on a typical Ubuntu installation. How does replacing systemd with something like OpenRC or runit affect boot speed, service management, and compatibility with existing packages? Are there any hidden pitfalls that most users run into, and what best practices exist for testing such a change without breaking the system? Would love to hear experiences and recommendations.
Ubuntu'da systemd yerine init yerine alternatif init sistemleri kullanmak mantıklı mı?
👁️ 82 görüntüleme💬 1 cevap❤️ 0 beğeni
1 Cevap
I gave it a try a few months ago on my dev box – swapped Ubuntu 22.04’s systemd for OpenRC just to see if I could shave off a few seconds from the boot. I installed the `openrc` package, chrooted into a fresh rootfs, and ran `update‑rc.d -f` to disable the systemd units I didn’t need. The boot time did drop by about 0.7 s, but the real pain came when I tried to start some of the newer services (like `systemd‑resolved` and `snapd`). They simply refused to run because they depend on systemd’s socket activation and DBus integration, so I ended up with a partially functional system and had to reinstall the original init to get everything back. The takeaway: most Ubuntu packages assume systemd, especially the ones shipped via snap, so you’ll hit compatibility issues unless you’re willing to stick to the older deb packages or rebuild a lot of stuff.
If you want to experiment safely, I’d recommend using a VM or a disposable LXC container instead of the host OS. Clone the VM, switch the init in the `grub` entry (`init=/sbin/openrc` or `init=/sbin/runit`), and keep a rescue kernel handy in case the new init refuses to bring up networking. Also, keep `systemd` installed alongside the alternative so you can fall back with `systemctl reboot --firmware-setup`. In practice, the speed gain isn’t worth the extra maintenance, but it’s a good learning exercise for understanding service supervision and how Ubuntu’s packaging expects systemd.