| > And perhaps is less of an issue these days since so many people use Mac's as their primary, so less Linux-isms survive once in context with osX. Yeah, and then we get "osX-isms" instead. Before node, there was rubygems which contained lots of macOS specific software. Nothing particularly wrong with that. People should use their preferred platforms to the fullest. Why make it a point to single us out for "linux-isms" though? Makes absolutely no sense. BSD-isms, Win32-isms, macOS-isms are just as abundant. > From following it over the year it was not entirely welcomed even in the linux community (and some of the security issues made one shudder). It's definitely welcomed now. There's plenty of legitimate criticism against systemd but lack of standards compliance, incompatibility with other platforms or lack of devotion to some nebulous "unix way" religion aren't among them. The whole point of systemd is to use Linux kernel features like cgroups to the fullest extent, and it does so to great effect. > Mostly it's the monolithic nature that's makes it a questionable, is it Gnu/Linux these days or Systemd/Linux ? It's just "Linux". GNU is not in any way special either. GNU, systemd, they're all just random user space stuff you can put on top of Linux. You can boot Linux directly into your software if you'd like. It's strictly less monolithic than BSDs which ship a kernel and a whole bunch of system components and user space libraries you can never ever bypass because they explicitly don't guarantee ABI stability like Linux does. To say nothing of macOS which becomes more of a walled garden every day that passes. |