This closes with the line The only time I interact with systemd is when I'm running it on a server, something the majority of people don't do. And the

This closes with the line The only time I interact with systemd is when I'm running it on a server, something the majority of people don't do. And there's the crux of the issue, from my perspective. I'm sure this year will be The Year of the Linux Desktop™ (are we still saying that?) but the fact is that there are way more Linux machines in a server role than in a desktop role and the people who run those machines are doing so because they are in the critical financial path of a company. This is a change that doesn't directly cater to the people who are running servers (despite the message that systemd has features that are valuable on servers). Relatively few people are running Linux at home compared to the number of server installations. So while more individual people may be impacted by systemd, it's designed and targeted for the desktop which has a lot fewer actual installs. I've had to interact with systemd on my desktop system rarely (but enough that it's frustrating for things that should be easy and obvious and just work) so what's on the desktop doesn't impact me that much. But I run way more server installations where things like boot-time and NetworkManager and multi-seat (I question how many people actually need this on the desktop anyway) and name-systemd-feature-of-week doesn't offer much advantage over the old system which seemed to be working fine, was mature, and everyone was sufficiently familiar with it (not to say it doesn't have warts, as everything does).