> And its adoption was largely driven by decisions by large distributions, rather than organic growth. Yes, that's not stated enough. According to systemd prop

> And its adoption was largely driven by decisions by large distributions, rather than organic growth. Yes, that's not stated enough. According to systemd proponents, systemd was demanded. Truth is I've never witnessed or heard about a rush towards RedHat distributions because they had systemd first. Never. That's what should have happened if systemd was so attractive, shouldn't it? Nor have I ever heard a user demanding systemd in order to solve his problems. It was pushed by distribution maintainers, not users. I remember when Arch decided to switch to systemd. The maintainers made false claims (which were repeated by other distributions later) and false promises. They claimed that systemd would relieve them from the terrible burden of maintaining init scripts. Many times have I asked to give example of this burden, I was never given an answer. Of course, the software packages are mostly all already present, there are very few new ones coming who require an init script, and the existing ones have had their script running for years and years, there is very little fixing or evolution in those. It's difficult to give proofs of a burden that did not exist, but that claim persisted, despite never being backed by anything. Arch maintainers, in order to get allowed to switch to systemd, promised that the previous init system would stay beside systemd and be maintained. That was a swindle: once they got the agreement to proceed with systemd on that condition, it was a matter of only a couple of months for them to ditch that promise. And 6 months after, the maintainer who made this promise in order to butter the opposition up and pass the deal for systemd as Arch init, was hired by RedHat...