> The constant anti-systemd bashing every time the name is mentioned from people who seem to barely know much about what it's trying ... to do is rather annoyin

> The constant anti-systemd bashing every time the name is mentioned from people who seem to barely know much about what it's trying ... to do is rather annoying. The constant misrepresentation and/or refusal to address the actual "anti-systemd" complaints by systemd advocates is also rather annoying. > makes me suspicious as to whether they did more than have a knee-jerk reaction to a tool that is different than what they used before. Resorting to accusations of incompetence only add toxicity to the discussion. You'll have to take my word for it, but I assure you I know what I'm talking about. > but considering practically every window manager/DE relied on consolekit Mine doesn't. Some of the special-purpose computer's I used to use didn't use a window manager. These may be uncommon use cases; so what? They solve the problems they are supposed to solve without any unnecessary overhead. > I find it hard to believe it's not desirable by a large majority of users So only popular need should be supported? The entire point I'm making is that there are many different reasons people use computers, including many that are unique or almost unique. I may use an older window manager, others might prefer to use consolekit or logind, someone else could be interested in developing a totally new post-window-manager design that doesn't even use metaphors like "desktop", "windows", "sessions", etc. All I'm arguing for is the freedom choose any of those options, which includes variations where consolekit isn't used even if it is used in popular configurations. The alternative is to argue that one design must be used everywhere, even when it is inappropriate or unwanted. > in my experience, the bash scripts always ended up being a hot mess I disagree, but you're welcome to your own opinion. If other software works better for you, then great, use it. I'm not trying to convince you to write bash scripts; I'm trying to explain why a single "one size fits all" design isn't possible, because we may be trying to solve different problems or prefer different tools. If systemd wasn't tightly cou0led and instead played nice with the rest of the systemj, we simply replace parts of it when necessary and we wouldn't be having his argument. > Not to mention that none of the alternatives give me the functionality I want Which is why I want you to have the freedom to use the tools you prefer to use, even systemd. Shouldn't other people have the freedom to made different choices?