Hello:

On 27 Jun 2026 at 11:08, Peter Duffy wrote:

> ... trying to visualise the thinking which probably drove the
> systemd development process.
Indeed ...

*Probably* is the key word within what you have taken the trouble to
write. ie: a seemingly sound explanation to the reasons behind the
creation of the absolute clusterfuck that systemd is.

The motivatiions you enumerate and describe could well be correct,
but cannot be looked at or analysed within a context less void which
is, I'm afraid, what you are doing.

Needless to say, I write this with all due respect.

In a reply to a post by Martin S. I described how, not being a
developer, programmer or experienced Linux user quickly came to
understand what systemd actually was and was about.

That being so after many years of having to deal with the MS registry
which, in my opinion, is nothing but an MS sanctioned virus at the
heart of its operating systems, from W95 onwards.

You may have read it.
If not:
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20260621.132524.4c0f261e.en.html

---
TL;DR:
systemd is nothing but a tool developed by L. Poettering to slowly
but steadily infiltrate, control and eventually crush the Linux
ecosystem as we know it.

This is being achieved via one of the arguably most important
distributions (Debian) and will eventually result in its becoming a
faint memory of what it once was.
ie: just collateral damage
---

By attempting to justify, understand or reason about the existence of
systemd we are only ignoring its real purpose.

And we do so at our peril.

While accepting the possibility of being wrong, I also wrote:

" I sincerely hope to be wrong, but I foresee (a turn of phrase if
you will) that the time will come when one will not be able to boot a
PC (or whatever replaces it) if some form of systemd is not present
somewhere in the hardware."

As always, time will tell if the Linux ecosystem was up to scratch.


Best,

A.