Thanks for the heads up on that - fascinating article.

One of the things which always baffles me about systemd was that right
from the word go, there was something which would have nipped in the bud
all the controversy, pain, recriminations, etc. etc. Make systemd
optional (so that, for example, it could be selected at install time
from a range of available init systems, and later, if desired, removed
and reinstalled).

That way, people who liked it could use it, and people who didn't like
it could use something else. Win-win situation: users could use the init
system which they wanted to use; and systemd developers wouldn't have to
spend all their time fending off howls of protest and hatred, and could
concentrate on making systemd better (and if they introduced something
that reduced the overall systemd usage, then they'd know (hopefully)
that it wasn't a good idea).

It's so obvious and self-evident that it must be concluded that there
are other factors and agendas at work. Which conclusion is deeply
depressing.

On Fri, 2020-05-15 at 14:44 -1000, Joel Roth via Dng wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:09:46PM -0700, spiralofhope wrote:

> Reminds me to revisit https://ewontfix.com/14/
> for Felker's Broken by Design article on systemd.
>
> None of the other init systems could compete
> sysvinit due to the latter's huge installed
> base. Except when marketing came along...
>