>It's not that people are opposed to change, it's that there are legit concerns about some of the ways systemd works and is implemented, and the way it's been h

>It's not that people are opposed to change, it's that there are legit concerns about some of the ways systemd works and is implemented, and the way it's been ham-fisted as a political move in a lot of ways. I personally think the industry needs a lot more resistance to change when it comes to interfaces and other things humans have to understand. I mean, I'm not talking about systemd in particular; I'm talking about in general about how interfaces change over time and people don't seem to take into account the cognitive costs of that change. Sure, ss is better than netstat and IP is better than ifconfig... but how much of that 'better' could you have done in a way that didn't toss away the historical knowledge so many people have of those tools? And really, sysadmin tools are the least of it; I mean, they are operated by professionals, so if you want to pay for retraining (or pay the costs associated with there being fewer of us) People change customer facing interfaces to no benefit all the time, forcing people who are trying to do other things to put effort into re-learning their interface. I mean, my point is that interface changes are expensive, and should not be undertaken without a really good argument that they bring more benefit than the cost of retraining.