> As a sometimes-administrator of Linux systems, You can have sometimes-availability of services. > It also seems a bit of a straw man to still be making the

> As a sometimes-administrator of Linux systems, You can have sometimes-availability of services. > It also seems a bit of a straw man to still be making the pro-systemd side as if it's mostly about boot times. It couldn't possibly be a straw man because I didn't disagree with the OP nor did I bother misstating his argument (flagged due to pretentiousness but not his own) in order to attack it. It is simply a fact that fast boot was the prime reason for systemd development. The most fundamental goal of the developers' was to increase efficiency with parallel service startup to achieve fast boot. Everything else may be considered feature creep, and without the feature creep, there would have been less criticism and resistance, as faster boot in and of itself isn't necessarily terrible. What is terrible is complexity and increasing complexity, as it will necessarily introduce fragility the more complex it becomes. For the record, if it wasn't obvious, my post was tongue-in-cheek and supposed to be funny in using false stereotypes to poke fun at developers, whom, of course, I respect immensely, yet by and large they can be a little sensitive sometimes, especially to any criticism of Linux or anything Linux does. There are valid views from all sides, and tribalism is usually not a good thing, yet humility and tolerance are virtues. If developers can't laugh at themselves, I can do it for them in hopes of dragging them along, kicking and screaming if need be.