4 Linux init systems that almost replaced systemd (and why they failed)
4 Linux init systems that almost replaced systemd (and why they failed)
https://www.howtogeek.com/4-linux-init-systems-that-almost-replaced-systemd-and-why-they-failed/
Publish Date: 2026-03-17 08:30:00
Source Domain: www.howtogeek.com
When Linux users get into arguments about init systems, the conversation usually circles back to systemd. systemd came out of a time when the Linux ecosystem was experimenting a lot, as distros searched for a better replacement for the aging SysV init system that had powered most Unix-like systems since the 1980s.
SysV init worked, but it had clear limitations (don’t hate me for this) because of its sequential order and primitive dependency management, because of which many projects attempted to modernize the boot process and service management model. Some focused on speed, others emphasized correctness, minimalism, or better dependency handling. A few of these projects gained some real traction, but none of them became the default across the entire Linux ecosystem.
Ultimately, systemd emerged as the dominant solution, but along the way, several serious contenders came close. Here are 4 Linux init systems that nearly replaced systemd, and why they eventually lost momentum.
Upstart
An event-driven init system developed by Canonical
Credit: wikimedia
If you have used Ubuntu between 2006 and 2015, you used Upstart. Developed by Canonical, Upstart replaced the old SysV model with an event-driven architecture. Instead of running startup scripts in one fixed order, services would react to things happening in the system.
This included events like a filesystem becoming available, a device being…
