I did have systemd induced problems but not recently. It was beta quality software when it was first introduced. Even on Debian which wasn't the first distro to

I did have systemd induced problems but not recently. It was beta quality software when it was first introduced. Even on Debian which wasn't the first distro to ship it. Problems were mostly related to the different naming schemes they introduced to solve problems where the name of a disk or a network interface could randomly change and cause issues. Incidentally that's exactly the areas where it bit me. On a remote system the issues could have been very serious. I did not have such problems in at least 10 years. Ubuntu's new networking changes are causing a similar problem on the latest LTS upgrade. The package manager does not complain about anything nor migrate the configuration but systems end up with no network. These issues are a pain to resolve on remote bare metal servers, thus unacceptable. Yet we accept them. (Not really. There's already an exodus from Ubuntu, due to Snap) I used Debian without systemd for a long time until it was no longer possible by upgrading. (I believe they make an effort to optionally run without systemd nowadays). In the meantime systemd got better. I still don't like it. It's like how people won't give btrfs another chance because it ate their data once 15 years ago. I think this is completely understandable. Thinking about the past, looking at the history, there's no reason to trust neither the technical skills or ethics of the people pushing systemd (or snaps) either.