I thoroughly support Devuan. I switched my home servers to it around the systemd introduction and kept their complete stability, and now I've been able to influ

I thoroughly support Devuan. I switched my home servers to it around the systemd introduction and kept their complete stability, and now I've been able to influence my company to run it instead of pure Debian. You have to make a few allowances for packages that assume they're running on systemd Debian, but overall the system works exactly as intended. And as commented in the article, it's stable and easy to understand. At the risk of igniting something, the only serious recommendation I hear about systemd is improved boot times. My computers are rebooted only for kernel updates - this is the entire point of running Linux. I want uptime. I can stand a boot time of a minute or so if it's once a month or less. If I have to reboot regularly enough that boot times become a serious advantage, someone has done something very wrong with Linux. In my opinion, the Debian developers were wrong to fully embrace systemd; it goes quite against the Debian principle of being able to adapt your machine to do anything. Yes, Red Hat held a lot of sway in convincing the community to adopt it, but Debian is a big distro as well - just look at the install base of Ubuntu. They could have held out and pushed back, but instead caved and now we're in the systemd mess. It intrudes so massively into userspace that it's impossible to get away from, and we wind up with the Windows model as this article points out - a massively complex spaghetti model of processes, all interlinked, all hinging on everything playing nicely. Just like Windows, it's a neat house of cards that could topple if any one of those crashed. This isn't Linux. I'm not defending sysvinit, there's no denying it's showing its age and harks back to a much simpler time, but systemd is not the answer.