I've never been critical of devuan, only what I consider unfounded accusations against systemd. But yeah, I probably went a bit overboard! Would have been bette

I've never been critical of devuan, only what I consider unfounded accusations against systemd. But yeah, I probably went a bit overboard! Would have been better if I had written a blog post I guess. If someone chooses SysV init, I'm not at all concerned, it's a different way of running a system and very effective. I was very happy with it over the years! My main issues are the following oft repeated claims: 1. systemd is monolithic and breaks the Unix philosophy of do one thing and do it well. It's not modular. 2. systemd is hard to configure 3. systemd breaks logging and forces the sysadmin to use binary formats 4. systemd uses binary configurations/is a binary blob/is undocumented 5. systemd has 70 binaries, each horribly intertwined As an example, I read a post the other day that stated that the binary log file format is deliberately undocumented [1], but the format has been documented since at least 2013... [2] The amount of misconceptions and wilful mischaracterisations if systemd really rankles me. There are issues, like some of the library linkages aren't great, but the objections given against systemd are normally technically incorrect and often what is written is so bile laden that if you took out the opinion the material would leave a paragraph worth of material... Which is why, IMO, when Debian used their robust processes to technically decide on moving to systemd it was chosen on technical grounds and not religious ones. Which tends to prove, at least in my mind, that Debian remains a very strong project :-) 1. http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/ http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/ 2. https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/www/commit/Software/systemd/journal-files.mdwn?id=3f6894419fb73f09ec0ed7524e352de08e71ec0d https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/www/commit/Software/syst...