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):
-
paramazo/systemd "The systemd System and Service Manager without age verification"
-
ganitam/systemd "Systemd fork just before the Age Verification addition. Hoping more capable developers and maintainers do same.."
-
GSYT-Productions/systemd-fork "The systemd System and Service Manager, without the stupid Age Verification"
-
speedythesnail/unret arded-systemd "The systemd System and Service Manager, without the ret arded age-verification commits"
-
ta13579/systemd "The systemd System and Service Manager WITHOUT THE FUCKING AGE CHECKS"
-
r4shsec/systemd-no-age-verification "This is systemd but without the age verification made via pull request https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40978"
-
Pingasmaster/fightthesystemd "Systemd without the nonsense: no age verification, no lighthouse built-in."
-
Jeffrey-Sardina/system "Liberated systemd -- no surveillance. Ever."
-
HaplessIdiot/systemd-saneagecheck "The systemd System and Service Manager with age verification bypass and polling rate options for said feature"
-
Queer-Coded-LGBTQ/systemd-fuck-california "The systemd System and Service Manager, but without age bs added in."
-
Codiak540/unshitted-systemd "A fork of systemd aiming to strip the Age verification. Sue me california."
Hopefully the energy of this reaction won't be scattered among too many alternatives, although some amount of scattering is always good.
This like comes from distrowatch. Yes means the distro is using systemd:
As we can see, the major popular distros use systemd.
You said it’s part of Linux. Which it isn’t. Just because some popular distros use it doesn’t mean it’s required.
Changing to another init requires major re-engineering and it's not easy.
If they could switch to systemd in the 2010s they can switch away from it in the 2020s if they really wanted to.
Have you tried it?
It may surprise you how non-non-trivial it is.
Major re-engineering can stand down. ;)
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.
I use Void which has runit by default. you don't need systemd, like at all.
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?