What are the best Linux init systems?

Question

6

Options
Considered

256

User
Recs.

17 secs

Last
Updated

Here’s the Deal

The Best 1 of 6 OptionsWhy?

Best Linux init systems	Price	Last Updated
93 OpenRC	-	Mar 26, 2020
76 SysV-init	-	Mar 27, 2020
75 runit	-	Mar 28, 2020
-- Upstart	-	Dec 5, 2019
-- s6	-	Mar 9, 2020

See Full List

5 Other Options Considered

SysV-init

Top Pro

Simple to understand

Top Con

Launches a bunch of processes to launch a process

Every init script spawns at least sh/dash/bash, and probably also additional processes such as cat, echo, start-stop-daemon, etc, just to start a single daemon that may not even be needed at the time of boot. This massive overhead results in poor performance, and is a killer for embedded systems. See More

Top Pro

Very stable

Since sysvinit does only one thing (initialize the system) and one thing only, it's very stable and it's impossible for it to fail for any problems unrelated to booting the system. See More

Top Con

Can lead to slow boot

Since init starts tasks serially, it has to wait for a certain task to finish in order to start the next one. But when startup processes end up I/O blocked, this leads to considerable delays during boot. See More

Top Pro

Better boot time and overall performance

Top Con

Duplicated implementation for every service

Every init script needs to reinvent the wheel for every script: argument processing, start/stop/restart/reload/status/whatever processing, finding/clearing/creating PID files, sourcing defaults, building and setting configuration options, so on and so forth. See More

Top Con

Initscripts is not portable

It is virtually impossible to write portable sysvinit-scripts See More

Top Con

Hard to write sysv-initscripts

As one needs programming skills (opposed to a declarative style). See More

See All

runit

Top Pro

Fast, parallel startup

After the system's one time tasks (stage 1) are done, the system services are started up in parallel. The operating system's process scheduler takes care of having the services available as soon as possible. See More

Top Con

Development stalled

Last patch was back in 2014. See More

marcuswmg's Experience

I use Artix Linux that uses Runit. The OS system runs snappier on my systems over the systemd init Arch Linux I was using before. I am very happy with RUNIT. See More

Top Pro

Small and Unix-like

One of the runit project's principles is to keep the code size small. As of version 1.0.0 of runit, the runit.c source contains 330 lines of code; the runsvdir.c source is 274 lines of code, the runsv.c source 509. This minimizes the possibility of bugs introduced by programmer's fault, and makes it more easy for security related people to proofread the source code. The runit core programs have a very small memory footprint and do not allocate memory dynamically. See More

Frank Earl's Experience

I'm the current maintainer (yes, the con of it not being supported is not QUITE truth), so I'll be honest and state a bit of bias there. Right now, I'm booting Yocto Embedded Linux distributions using runit thanks to meta-runit. It just simply works. It doesn't expose attack faces on your embedded devices like systemd DOES. It's easier to approach, easier to figure out how to drive it properly. See More

Top Pro

Easy to use

Simple scripts linked to the proper directory is all that's needed to bring a service up at boot, and everything is up and running quickly. See More

ExceptionalMenhit's Experience

Super easy, works as expected, and fast. See More

Top Pro

Runs on every POSIX system

PrinceKael's Experience

So simple to use yet effective. Everything runs fast while also being stable. See More

Top Pro

Supported by several Linux plumbers

Myself included. Development is no longer stalled. See More

Aleksander Svétnik's Experience

It's simplicity is charming. See More

Top Pro

Init purity. Does what an init system must do and nothing more.

UNIX philosophy, easy to add new services, easy to manipulate, really fast, Happy to read, that the development is not stalled. See More

Yoši Yoda's Experience

I use runit with Artix Linux. It's fast and it works. See More

See All

s6

Top Pro

Runs on every POSIX system

Top Con

Heavy

It depends on libc, has a lot of code. See More

HilariousHachiman's Experience

Obarun See More

See All

systemd

Top Con

Not UNIX-like

One of the main argument that people who are against using systemd is that it does not follow on of UNIX'S core philosophies. 'Do one thing and do it well', instead systemd represents a collection of dozens of tightly coupled libraries. With responsibilities that exceed those of a simple init system because it also tries to handle things like device management, power management, mount points, cron, encryption, syslog, network configuration etc... See More

Top Pro

Cgroups processes control

Systemd groups all processes by services using Linux's cgroups. Think about memory/cpu/tasks/IO/Net limits and accounting for any service. See More

RespectablePramzimas's Experience

A start job is running... See More

Top Con

Too monolithic

It tries to do too much. I don't think most people who use systemd are even aware of most of the features as they don't really use them. It makes it really complicated to deal with sometimes, and it's possible that in a few years this project will be a nightmare to maintain, and with that the users of it will start to feel the fallout. See More

Top Pro

Default for many popular distributions

Systemd is the default init system for most popular Linux distributions (Arch, Debian, Ubuntu, openSUSE, Fedora, etc.) Therefore there is an insane amount of support behind Systemd. Choosing Systemd means running with the herd, which comes with it's pros and few (or none for some people) cons. See More

ExceptionalMenhit's Experience

Writing unit files as been a massive hassle. Sometimes they don't work as expected, built in logging it a dumpster fire as it stores your logs in a binary format so they're impossible to sort through. If you're logs are big enough See More

Top Con

Makes dependent products difficult to port

Software dependent on systemd. Becomes difficult to port to systems that lack systemd. See More

Top Pro

Login management out of the box

Systemd contains a daemon called logind which is used for managing user logins. See More

Holo Deck's Experience

Systemd is basically one of the main reasons why I switched back to Windows as my main operating system after using 10 years of Linux only. Its just hilarious everytime I update systemd somethink breaks eg I've get dropped to the emergency console for some stupid reason. or a start/stop job is running for a few minutes. See More

Top Con

Binary Logging

A binary log structure means that any tools you want to use to parse it will have to be aware of its format, and know how to deal with the ways it can become corrupted. Otherwise, it's not really possible in the easy sense. See More

PrinceKael's Experience

Buggy, annoying and development suffers from unprecedented scope creep and various other concerns. See More

Top Con

Uses Confirmity as a Philosophy

While it does have many features, SystemD is designed with a pattern of making choices for the user. Since it is not easy for the user to override these decisions, SystemD essentially follows the "knows whats best for the user" philosophy. This may remind the reader of Apple devices, where all the hardware looks the same, all the software looks practically the same, and the only customization options are wallpapers, physical stickers, or phone cases. See More

LikablePhobos's Experience

5 years See More

Top Con

It's all or nothing

While it is technically possible to use software without SystemD, it really is true that it is "almost impossible" to use software without it, given that all the hard porting work to other init systems has not been done already for you, or given the fact that you are trying to install unported packages directly from the authors (either from binary, like a DEB file, or from source.) Consider the following: Every major Linux distribution runs SystemD as an only option for init systems. Around %95 of GNU/Linux users use SystemD, give or take. SystemD makes things easier for lazy developers (at a cost, however.) Therefore, most software packages that depend on an init system are developed with inherent and sole SystemD support, in favor of the status quo. While distributions such as Artix-, Gentoo-, and Void Linux have been able to correct packages that depend on SystemD, it is not the easiest to do so. Developers and users wanting to package their own software or build software from source may give up trying to work without SystemD since the software may need to be edited for extra compatibility. See More

Top Con

Connects to Google DNS servers by default

Top Con

Runs only on Linux

Top Con

Need glibc

Top Con

Kills background processes after the user logs out by default

Top Con

Overkill as an init system, resulting to unsafe init system

1.2 million code lines... How this monster is controlled with such a huge size, for security leaks and other aspects? How about if, the homed new service fails and your home folder may become unreadable or useless? See More

Top Con

Lead developer shows near complete lack of care for standards of quality needed for developing a part of an OS as integral as the init system is

See All

I Recommend...

Built By the Slant team

Find the best product instantly.

Lustre recommends the best products at their lowest prices – right on Amazon.

4.7 star rating

Add to Chrome

Try it now - it's free

score 59 · Accepted Answer

OpenRC

Top Pro

No feature creep

OpenRC follows the UNIX philosophy of 'do one thing and do it well', while it's true that it has more features than sysvinit, it does not stay away from its primary function with unnecessary added features. See More

Top Con

No socket activation

OpenRC does not have socket activation yet. It will be added in the future though. See More

VersatileMamaQuilla's Experience

Stable, Unix and fast See More

Top Pro

Extremely simple

All configuration is done via shell scripts and symlinks. Shell scripts can then use various specialized utilities to ease the development of init scripts. See More

SupportivePhantasos's Experience

5 second boot vs Systemd's 20 or runit's 10 See More

Top Pro

Fast

OpenRC builds on top of sysvinit and adds some more useful features (like parallel booting) while still the simplicity that sysvinit is know for. Because of this it generally boots faster than other init systems, especially when parallel booting is enabled. See More

Top Pro

Less dependency creep

Using OpenRC does not lock in a distribution by providing specific NON-POSIX extra services which programs then would rely on. See More

Top Pro

A very balanced compromise

Basically OpenRC doesn't replace SysV init, but rather works with it, providing features that SysV is lacking while taking advantage of its benefits. It's also used by a fair amount of reasonably popular distros and is well supported and developed. See More

Top Pro

UNIX-Like

Does one thing and does it well. See More

Top Pro

Very Efficient on System Resources

Uses multi-core and ram very efficiently. See More

Top Pro

Portable

It can be ported to other UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems. See More

See All

Built by Slant

Find the best product
instantly.

Stop wasting time searching endlessly. Lustre recommends the best products at their lowest prices – right on Amazon.

4.7 star rating

Add to Chrome - It's Free Try now - it's free

What are the best Linux init systems?

The Best 1 of 6 OptionsWhy?

OpenRC

My Recommendation for OpenRC

My Recommendation for OpenRC

No feature creep

No socket activation

Extremely simple

Fast

Less dependency creep

A very balanced compromise

UNIX-Like

Very Efficient on System Resources

Portable

5 Other Options Considered

SysV-init

My Recommendation for SysV-init

My Recommendation for SysV-init

Simple to understand

Launches a bunch of processes to launch a process

Very stable

Can lead to slow boot

Better boot time and overall performance

Duplicated implementation for every service

Initscripts is not portable

Hard to write sysv-initscripts

runit

My Recommendation for runit

My Recommendation for runit

Fast, parallel startup

Development stalled

Small and Unix-like

Easy to use

Runs on every POSIX system

Supported by several Linux plumbers

Init purity. Does what an init system must do and nothing more.

Upstart

My Recommendation for Upstart

My Recommendation for Upstart

Simple .conf file in /etc/init

Ubuntu abandoned it

It was just sysvinit or systemd in disguise

s6

My Recommendation for s6

My Recommendation for s6

Runs on every POSIX system

Heavy

systemd

My Recommendation for systemd

My Recommendation for systemd

Not UNIX-like

Cgroups processes control

Too monolithic

Default for many popular distributions

Makes dependent products difficult to port

Login management out of the box

Binary Logging

Uses Confirmity as a Philosophy

It's all or nothing

Connects to Google DNS servers by default

Runs only on Linux

Need glibc

Kills background processes after the user logs out by default

Overkill as an init system, resulting to unsafe init system

Lead developer shows near complete lack of care for standards of quality needed for developing a part of an OS as integral as the init system is

Don't see your favorite option? Add it.

One sec!