I've been against systemd since day 1, because implementation issues aside, the entire concept is flawed and totally against UNIX philosophy: do one thing and d

I've been against systemd since day 1, because implementation issues aside, the entire concept is flawed and totally against UNIX philosophy: do one thing and do it well. UNIX, and by extension Linux, succeeded because of this philosophy. It's also fairly transparent that RedHat would like Linux to be more obfuscated so that more enterprises will have to depend on it for support. But that's no surprise. What was surprising was that the Debian foundation not only opted to adopt systemd, but did so long before it was anywhere near proven to be stable, reliable code. This is contrary to their longstanding methodology. Ubuntu's adoption of systemd was simply the result of following Debian upstream. If only enough people could organize Debian to reverse course on systemd, if only until systemd proves to be stable and reliable (likely never). However, let's not pretend this is the first time that Linux has deviated from traditional UNIX and compatibility. There's always been Linuxisms, systemd is just by far the most egregious case. FreeBSD has really come of age with pkgng though, and I'm happy to see it garner more attention now due to systemd woes. It has always excelled in certain ways, which is why Whatsapp was able to scale to millions of connections on a single box way back in 2012, its process/thread scheduling resulting in more responsiveness under load, better packet filtering, containerization much earlier on (jails), native ZFS, etc.