> Please stop perpetuating the false dichotomy of systemd versus sysvinit, it gets tiring. It's hardly a false dichotomy to compare what a distro was using pre

> Please stop perpetuating the false dichotomy of systemd versus sysvinit, it gets tiring. It's hardly a false dichotomy to compare what a distro was using previously to what they are using today, which is what I did (and what OP asked for). > Indeed, I do recall Dave Reisner of Arch Linux complaining about systemd's pace and its poor test suite, requiring lots of patching. I didn't say it was perfect, and in fact, I have a long list of complaints about the initial switch in Arch (though not Debian). That doesn't negate the point that the reason Arch (and other distros) dropped support for sysvinit was that there ended up being insufficient interest from maintainers in maintaining it.