I think systemd brought a lot of good stuff to the table, but I also think it's a sprawling mess with poorly named and documented (as in there are behaviors imp

I think systemd brought a lot of good stuff to the table, but I also think it's a sprawling mess with poorly named and documented (as in there are behaviors implied by statements in different config directive sections that make it hard to reason about how stuff works). I'm looking forward to the successor of systemd, or at a minimum, them rolling out config syntax 2.0 which breaks compatibility in an effort to make stuff more sanely named and documented. I know that would cause huge churn. I know it will never happen. But I can dream, because I don't think anyone can look at how systemd configs define dependencies and say that they both understand the nuances and that those directives are are named sanely in a way that normal people can understand, and that's indicative of a lot of stuff with systemd. Even though it was probably designed by some of the most knowledgeable people WRT init systems, it grew organically as they discovered new things they needed, and it needed a lot (which I think just goes to show how little was really understood by anyone about how to tightly couple these things).