[generalizations]

> monstrosity that were SysV init scripts

I'm really tired of people pretending that systemd is the only modern init system around. If you're going to compare it to the status quo, at least don't strawman it. If SysV init scripts are your comparison, it just sounds like you're regurgitating outdated talking points.

[okanat]

Sorry but this argument really falls flat. All of the other init systems' service files are reminiscent of SysV say OpenRC or runit.

Moreover systemd achieves what it does because it provides a unified way of doing system administration. It is not only a service manager. It is the much needed dynamic system layer for Linux.

A modern Linux engineer or a sysadmin, no longer needs to make 5 to 10 different services work together by duct taping everything or writing abstraction layers per integration. Any system that has the correct level of abstraction will be at least as complex as systemd.

[sph]

> systemd is the only modern init system around

I never said it was. I said it's the only relevant one. Upstart was half-decent, for example, but no one uses it any more. Yes, there are other modern init systems, none that are so brilliantly designed and perfect that are worth this kind of resistance. They're all crappy in their own way. So what if systemd has won.

I do not get why people want to die on this inconsequential hill.

> regurgitating outdated talking points

No, I'm not being paid by Poettering. I've been running Linux systems and software for 25 years, and I have formed my opinion on the matter, thank you very much.