> Is the difference between an OS with one init system and another noticable? Systemd has lots of good ideas, and is now mature enough in most places. Unfortun

> Is the difference between an OS with one init system and another noticable? Systemd has lots of good ideas, and is now mature enough in most places. Unfortunately, the authors of systemd have the tendency to replace virtually everything in Linux with their own version, designed for their own purpose, without listening to how other people use those things. And you can't really disentangle parts of systemd just using a distro. So system administrators not using Linux for a desktop got tired of constantly fighting the breaking things, and just threw it out completely. If systemd only was an init system, and had stayed out of the rest (syslog, DNS, network management, directory layout, you name it), and would just have done the init system job really well, it wouldn't really be controversial. But with the "you need to do it my way, I don't give a shit for your use case is, and I don't give a shit if I break your system" attitude shoving it down the throat of everyone, they didn't really make friends with many people who run more complicated systems.