> SystemD I don't know why, but it bothers me when someone's trying to criticize systemd, without even bothering to get the case right. It smells of not having

> SystemD I don't know why, but it bothers me when someone's trying to criticize systemd, without even bothering to get the case right. It smells of not having looked at it any more than to form the run of the mill opinion on systemd, while looking at what came before with healthy dose of romantic nostalgia. I don't want my init system to be a series of garage-quality bash scripts with slightly different error rate tolerances etc, systemd solves that. I don't want my system to just blindly shut down, even if it's not necessarily safe to do so immediately, systemd solves that. What systemd critics often miss is that it's also a rather valuable resource manager in general. I know that many would say this should not be part of systemd, but the thing is while that sounds nice, nobody built anything remotely as convenient for Linux as systemd in this area. It's nice to say what systemd got wrong, but I haven't seen anything actually built that can seriously compete with it. I now actively avoid distros without systemd, because the admin experience of those distros has generally been much less consistent. We can all talk about the right way to do things, but unless there's code that's clearly superior to what systemd offers me today, am not interested.