> I was quite happy without systemd. Good for you then. I am sure you were happy with X11's rotting core & didn't need Wayland in your life, you also likely we

> I was quite happy without systemd. Good for you then. I am sure you were happy with X11's rotting core & didn't need Wayland in your life, you also likely weren't the one having to maintain its decades old codebase. > If you want to write a better init system, go for it. Am personally happy with systemd, thanks, if you're not, why don't you go ahead and write a better one, instead of complaining every time systemd's name is mentioned? > This is exactly what systemd does. Rewriting rock solid, CPU efficient code with something shaky and CPU intensive. That doesn't seem factual. systemd is a system manager, useful even after the system is booted up, I think people need to understand that first, it's not just an init system, because many modern services fit an event driven model these days. It's written in C and can run fine on tiny embedded systems. > Factually incorrect. There are many init alternatives that got away from the shell script paradigm. Including SMF in Solaris. Yeah, and launchd on macOS, by which systemd was literally inspired by, we're talking about Linux here, since that's where systemd runs, at least I was.