I agree with everything you say. And yes, I do know where LP works now
;(

But presumably not every linux user knows the systemd agenda and/or has
bought into it. Some linux users really do (unbelievably) think systemd
is good. If nothing else, the "why not optional" question might help to
separate between the two.

I'm trying to work out whether the guy concerned is a member of the
systemd high priesthood, or just likes systemd. After his latest reply,
I'm tending more towards the former.

On Tue, 2024-06-25 at 10:24 -0300, altoid via Dng wrote:
> Hello:
>
> On 25 Jun 2024 at 13:19, Peter Duffy wrote:
>
> > "... a fundamental core function of the operating system."
>
> And what did you expect?
> A reasonable answer / explanation?
>
> systemd is *not* optional because it was *not* designed to be a
> solution to *anything*, much less the "boots faster" crap spewed all
> over the web as one of the prime justifications for its existence.
>
> The answer you received to your question clearly indicates how it
> evolved.
>
> Like I wrote in here some time ago:
>
> " ... systemd is part of a decades old, solidly established agenda,
> not secret or hidden but in plain sight from the very start."
>
> BTW: do you know where Poettering works now?*
> * -> paraphrasing the famous PSA announcement in US TV ca. 1960/1980.
>
> "... it was never considered as optional by the systemd crowd: no one
> in their sane mind would go for it so they opted to rig the system
> and forcefully shove it down everyone's throat." 
>
> " ... forgetting that systemd flies in the face of absolutely
> *everything* Unix/Linux philosophy stands for and that it was
> invented as a *solution* looking for multiple problems albeit with
> the sole purpose of wrecking the Linux ecosystem from within."
>
> An interesting reply?
> Really?
>
> Best,
>
> A.
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng