> The authors feel no need to bend over backwards to fulfill oddball distribution requirements. This is close to the truth in my opinion, but slightly off in t

> The authors feel no need to bend over backwards to fulfill oddball distribution requirements. This is close to the truth in my opinion, but slightly off in two ways: - It's not just distributions, it's also other software, especially desktop environments. - The "oddball requirements" are not so odd and mainly based on real world problems users run into. There are problems that SysVinit will never try to solve, yet that there is no other obvious place to solve except for pid 1, so systems that continue to run SysVinit will just never have solutions for those problems. And I get it: You don't care. However, the people who actually work on free software often do. You don't have to love systemd, D-Bus, Polkit, UPower, UDisks, Pipewire, Wayland or any other number of pieces of software, protocols, or specifications, but you have to be in pretty strong denial to not see what lead to them. The entire Linux desktop can't be built on janky shell scripts that parse CLI tool output forever. Eventually, people want to move on and build more complete solutions to problems. Distributions exert pressure on the ecosystem because they're the ingress for all of the user pain. A vast amount of issues reported go through them first, and then it's up to them to figure out what to do about it. So if you have a problem with anyone, it's probably not actually the distributions themselves, but the kinds of things the users of those distributions are complaining about.