[vnorilo]

I've always wondered about this sentiment about software you are free to use or not. Or is it the fact that a majority of others, or those that have the power, choose for you by making life harder if you deviate? Shouldn't you curse those people, instead of the creators of the software?

[BubRoss]

A lot of software can feel like a bait and switch. To keep compatibility you have to use windows, but the quality goes up and down. Bundled IE, windows ME, then XP which people loved, then Vista, then windows 7 which people loved again, then windows 10. There isn't nearly as much freedom of choice when it is an all or nothing game and things are changing underneath you. Windows 10 reverts your settings after doing forced updates. It forces Cortana to be on and Microsoft has been found to have employees listening in on voice commands. This doesn't apply to bill gates any more, but it does illustrate why people end up using software they hate.

[vnorilo]

Bait and switch is a good reason for animosity, agreed.

[Izkata]

Also, Windows 8 (so bad you forgot it existed?)

[ejefz]

Red Hat controls both gnome and systemd. They made systemd a hard dependency for gnome. That's the only reason systemd "won".

[scrollaway]

Seeing as gnome is/was nowhere near the top desktop environment, ubuntu had its own version of systemd at the time, and systemd had already garnered a huge amount of support across other distributions … no, it's not "the only reason" systemd won. systemd won on merits of practicality, because while the vocal minority hates some of the things it does (such as providing a bundled ecosystem of administrative software that all works together), it's also a big reason why it's popular across people who just want their computer to work.