> They broke userland. That alludes to kernel development, which systemd is largely uninvolved with. A userland program chosen by various distributions failed

> They broke userland. That alludes to kernel development, which systemd is largely uninvolved with. A userland program chosen by various distributions failed to support conventions from a different userland program. That's all. Were the programs involved fundamental and highly important to many users' experience? Sure. Is busting out "you broke userland" like some magical shibboleth useful as a means of your conveying your unhappiness that your distribution maintainers chose to replace a widely-depended-upon program with a different program useful? I think not. > they went against POSIX behaviour Which? There's "tradition" and "specified behaviour". Both are important in different situations and in different degrees. > You don't turn around and say that all the sysutils should incorporate your new idea. Why not? They're no more privileged by the POSIX specification, or by the user/kernel -space divide than any other program.