I've been using it (including writing unit files etc) since archlinux adopted it, so over 10 years now. I still don't like it. The binary interface to logs is

I've been using it (including writing unit files etc) since archlinux adopted it, so over 10 years now. I still don't like it. The binary interface to logs is a good example, not only for the popular dislike for needing to run a binary to view the log, but also, central to my dislike, is the issue with the "init" system being in charge of logging at all. systemd if far far beyond an "init" system, it is striving to be the "kernel" of user space, in charge of all system functions that are not in the kernel. This isn't feature creep, it's by design. Is the "init" system in charge of network name resolution? What about making fundamental configuration setting to the OS? Another example of the binary required to access logs, is any change to a non-running root filesystem. If you've configured a rootfs for a machine other than the one you're doing this work on (maybe a different CPU architecture, or simply a rootfs for another machine) you're going to run into complications. Same situation when in a chroot. If the rootfs you're configuring, isn't the one currently active, those binary executables are going to havee trouble. As soon as we have systemd-packagemanagerd, there will be 0 difference between systemd based distributions. Everyone will simply put the kernel together w/ systemd for a complete operating system. This was Red Hat's intention, now IBM's intention. I use linux for my work, both in embedded targets and in my development workstation. For many years I've simply copied my home dir to new computers and moved on. The next time I configure a workstation from scratch, I'm going to voidlinux. runit, based on The DJB Way, is much closer to my ideal...