So customers pay to be insulated from complexity. Just so obviously a
blatant restating of the M$ attitude - which is the reason why there are
so many clueless computer users the world over, and by extension, so
much cybercrime.

But if systemd makes it more difficult to solve problems, and makes the
system more unreliable, then the customers aren't even getting what they
paid for before systemd was introduced. The problem is obviously proving
whether or not systemd really does make a system more
unreliable/undiagnosable. The argument for/against is just so completely
and rabidly polarised that getting any impartial evidence about any
aspect of it is about as feasible as getting impartial evidence about
the effects of brexit.

I've wondered for a long time if it would be independently possible to
make systemd optional. I had in mind a kind of virtual plugboard which
would sit between the system and the init subsystem, and to some extent
control interaction between the two (allowing "loopback switches" to
both init system and applications, to pre-empt init system functionality
which wasn't desired). It wouldn't be a permanent solution or even
workaround - just a way of hopefully demonstrating the benefits of
having systemd as optional rather than mandatory (if you want to tame or
study something, first get it into a cage). I did mention it on here a
while ago, but after the horrified responses, I didn't pursue it.
However, it was interesting to see that, according to distrowatch, MX
Linux is currently the most popular distro, and it offers systemd as an
option. Apparently they use systemd-shim to facilitate this. This is
probably (hopefully?) a bit out-of-date now, but some of the comments
are still interesting:

https://mxlinux.org/blog/so-we-could-use-a-little-help-with-systemd-shim/


On Thu, 2021-11-25 at 10:35 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> Peter Duffy said on Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:51:18 +0000
>
> >I've said it before and I'll say it again. All this could have been
> >avoided - if systemd had been made optional from day 1. People who
> >liked it could use it; people who didn't like it could use something
> >else. Email traffic to the systemd developers would tend to consist of
> >genuine problem reports and requests for enhancement, rather than hate
> >mail. So there would have been no need for the systemd team to
> >barricade themselves behind a wall of silence and arrogance. And
> >systemd itself would gradually improve. Massive win-win in every
> >conceivable way. The scary thing is that LP and co. must see that as
> >clearly as anyone else.
>
> The following is my opinion. I didn't sit on the Redhat board of
> directors, but neither did anyone on this list or the Debian-Users
> list, as far as I know.
>
> Redhat wasn't looking for a win-win. They were looking for a
> win-it-all, and that meant that traditional Linux, and all its
> adherents, lost. When systemd was starting to be foist on the world,
> Redhat was a vendor of support and training. You can't make very much
> on support and training for an easy technology. Only by complexifying
> Linux could they grow their business.
>
> Now I'll show you the smoking gun, which actually happened several
> years before systemd. Click the following link and search for the word
> "complexity" in the following URL:
>
> http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/10/interview-with-red-hat-cto-brian.html
>
> I quote then-Redhat CTO Brian Stevens: "Red Hat's model works because
> of the complexity of the technology we work with."
>
> Systemd fanboiz are quick to point out this statement had nothing to do
> with systemd because it was uttered at least 3 years before systemd
> development began. From my viewpoint, whether it was about systemd or
> not doesn't matter. As they say in the courtroom, his statement "goes
> to motive". Redhat's model works only in the face of complexity.
>
> So Redhat finds PoetterPinhead with his gigantically complexified and
> dismodular "init system" so rickety it needs constant fixes, hires him
> and about 6 others to keep the albatross running, and sics it on Linux
> in order to complexify Linux so there's more demand for Redhat's
> consulting and training.
>
> Meanwhile, view any video with PoetterPinhead. He thrives on conflict.
> With his albatross welded into Linux, he gets a chance to argue to his
> heart's content. He gets paid to travel the world putting people down.
> He's in heaven.
>
> So although what you write about the fact that making it optional would
> have lessened the drama and conflict is correct, that was never going
> to happen, because lessening drama and conflict was never the goal.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful
> Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng