> with a continuous open issue counter at about 1.400 issues, where new issues and bugs keep popping up I dislike systemd as much as the next guy (for reasons

> with a continuous open issue counter at about 1.400 issues, where new issues and bugs keep popping up I dislike systemd as much as the next guy (for reasons such as absolutely horrible DSL for defining services with >150 different keywords that are very hard to find unless one already knows about them, non-debuggability in case of errors, horrible documentation), but is "open issue counter" a good measurement of software stability? > If we take a look, just as an example, at the man page for systemd-networkd it clearly states that if you define the option UseDNS as true the DNS servers received from the DHCP server will be used and take precedence over any statically configured ones. This corresponds to the nameserver option in resolv.conf. What it forgets to mention is that this setting (and multiple other settings) doesn't work without systemd-resolved. Is this true? If author has provided a report of his attempt to setup systemd-networkd without systemd-resolved, this would be much more believable at face value. > The GNU/Linux many of us know so well, is slowly turning into a disaster, an operating system apocalypse of security issues just waiting to happen. Just because everyone wanted a new init system, but somehow ended up with everything but a new kernel. Now all that is missing is systemd-linux. This honestly sounds like a rant from 10 years ago. Many distros don't use systemd. Linux From Scratch still maintains non-systemd book by default. The "operating system apocalypse" sounds like quite a hyperbole.