[jimktrains2]

> This is one of the main reasons I approve of systemd. It is something completely new fighting against the old entrenched cruft.

Most people aren't anti-systemd because it's new, but because it doesn't conform to their philosophy of how their computer should run. There could be newer init systems that conform to their ideals, but systemd is not one of them.

[chc]

Could there be, or are there? Because it is entirely possible that their philosophy is too rigid to permit a system that is substantially different from what exists now, in which case "They're against it because it's new" seems like a fair assessment.

[pessimizer]

Are you arguing that it may me that all objectors to systemd would be dissatisfied with all possible init systems different than what exists now?

[chc]

I'm arguing that "It doesn't agree with their philosophy" is not incompatible with "They don't like it because it's new." It's not uncommon for people to build personal philosophies that work out to "change is bad."

[zokier]

Important note: I said I approve, not like, systemd. It is an important distinction, because I like that there is activity even though I might not be such fan of the software itself. This is in contrast to (some) anti-systemd people who seem to be opposed to the very existence of systemd.