[sevensor]

Like PulseAudio in its early years, systemd bothers a lot of people because it was pushed out before it was quite ready, and therefore breaks things that used to work. But also like PulseAudio, it solves a whole lot of problems for which the solutions were becoming increasingly hacky and unstable. I don't believe a slower roll-out would have helped in either case, because many of the issues were undetectable without a broad user base.

Anti-Lennart partisans would say here that both pieces of software are broken by design and leave in a huff. I sympathize with their aversion to complexity, but I'll take a complex init system and simple configuration over a simple init system with baroque configuration.

[pawadu]

From a users point of view there is little difference between software that crashes because its garbage and software that crashes because it is in early stage of development but otherwise a good solution.

Lennart should write more robust software and maintainers should do more QA when doing this type of system-wide changes.

[microtonal]

I agree very much with the points that you are making.

It would also help if small parts of a system would be replaced at a time. Replacing daemon/process supervision, login handling, logging, network configuration, etc. all at the same time in distributions that are used by millions of users is quite risky.

[digi_owl]

Sadly the best you will get out of the systemd camp is "tough luck, should have joined from the start to avoid the pain".