I don't disagree with what you say, but it feels like a lot more important issue than you describe it. The whole systemd thing was intended to rewrite some pret

I don't disagree with what you say, but it feels like a lot more important issue than you describe it. The whole systemd thing was intended to rewrite some pretty complex stuff that works already, but as it turned out over time does many things wrong. And do it right™ this time. Keywords: "rewrite", "already works", "right". And I personally believe it's a good idea, because what is done wrong at low level produces more and more work, complexity and errors on higher levels. Very hard to achieve, but essentially good. Now, the complex system with good API and architecture, but not-so-perfect internals is hard, but possible to fix and improve over time. System with bad API is essentially impossible to fix, ever. People that write optimal code without bugs, but terrible APIs and don't care about what others feel about that simply cannot "do it right™". Yeah, it may work well out of the box, but the progress goes on and after 5-10 years community will struggle to implement something new and important on top of that systemd and feel that only way to stop the pain is to replace it with some systemπ and do it right™, and people will remember 2014 year and say: "Well, we had that story with systemd already. It turned out to be no good! We'll make do without doing stuff right™." Thinking about it I feel sad regardless it may work smooth out of the box at the moment.