> But all those words are meaningless. "stable" and "well understood" could also be said of systemd. Bugs like this: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/05/

> But all those words are meaningless. "stable" and "well understood" could also be said of systemd. Bugs like this: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/05/linux_systemd_grants_root_to_invalid_user_accounts/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/05/linux_systemd_grant... https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6077 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6077 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/9449 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/9449 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/9079 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/9079 Indicate that systemd interactions aren't particularly well thought out. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/8730 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/8730 Non-deterministic behavior is exactly what I'd strive to avoid in an init system. Stuff like this: https://www.agwa.name/blog/post/how_to_crash_systemd_in_one_tweet https://www.agwa.name/blog/post/how_to_crash_systemd_in_one_... Indicates both poor understanding of how an init system should work (including basics like privilege separation) and poor stability. Stuff like this: https://threatpost.com/linux-systemd-bug-could-have-led-to-crash-code-execution/126605/ https://threatpost.com/linux-systemd-bug-could-have-led-to-c... Well, I for one do not want my init system to be network accessible.