I think ongoing constructive discussion about the technical and philosophical issues with software design, particularly of open-source software that affects hug

I think ongoing constructive discussion about the technical and philosophical issues with software design, particularly of open-source software that affects huge numbers of users, is always valuable. The OP here even likes systemd, so the article isn't nitpicking. As others have pointed out, when your init process faults, that's a major problem. In the real world, for the core elements of an operating system, whatever features they have are less important than how well they fail. In this case, the OP has identified a very very bad failure case. More importantly, this report makes concrete the theoretical complaint against systemd that its monolithic design is not just a philosophical issue, but a practical one. The init process needs to be rock solid, but a law of software is that bigger software is less stable. So if the sprawling nature of systemd means it will tend to become less stable over time, then we have a major practical issue that needs to be addressed. This is not a matter of not moving on. Rather, given that systemd has been adopted by several major Linux distributions, it's actually far more important now to criticize its design failures, to draw attention to get things fixed. If "moving on" means we shouldn't critique the software, then how will it ever improve?