> 90% of Red Hat's revenue is from servers just a correction, red hat revenue is from support contracts. > If systemd is bad for servers, why did RHEL[1] and

> 90% of Red Hat's revenue is from servers just a correction, red hat revenue is from support contracts. > If systemd is bad for servers, why did RHEL[1] and CoreOS adopt it? Are we to believe that these companies work against themselves? I know of two theories: 1) making systemd a dependency for gnome and the rest, red hat is trying to exterminate *bsd, which is considered better for servers. 2) "Software that ain't broken doesn't sell $$$upport. "