Not sure what else you're doing with a QR library, except maybe building tetris (which seems like a bad idea for something purported to be an init system).
Sure it is. An init system should, first and foremost, be stable and well understood. By virtue of its size and youth, systemd is not (at least not by devs and end users).
But all those words are meaningless. "stable" and "well understood" could also be said of systemd. There is no metric to it. By that logic we could go back to using software from before 20 years, because they are "stable".
I have noticed that systemd is "stable" and "well understood" because I have no problems with it. But would that convince someone else?
To be honest, @inferiorhuman keeps providing you with well supported reasoning for his position, whilst your only contribution appears to be "that doesn't meet my personal standards", which is devoid of any meaningful content for the rest of us. I am a committed systemd argument aficionado, and would really like to see a more supported set of arguments from your side. So far, @inferiorhuman is winning this debate.
It's typical in a systemd discussion that a link dump to broken stuff appears. Weather or not these are indeed broken - that is not explained. FWIW at least there are bug reports. The conclusion that because of those reports sysvinit is better, is false. It could just be that nobody cares about sysvinit anymore, so fewer bug reports happen.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32924335/using-systemd-w...
> The journal is the only mandatory component of systemd outside PID1.
Seems pretty deeply embedded to me.
> what does that even mean? that they are older?
They are older, better understood, and there are fewer substantive bugs (e.g. malformed blob = run service as root).
> You seem to repeat what other people say like the "QR code" without even looking it up.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-October...
Not sure what else you're doing with a QR library, except maybe building tetris (which seems like a bad idea for something purported to be an init system).