| Here's Linus defending him on /. [1] Linus: You can say the word "systemd", It's not a four-letter word. Seven letters. Count them. I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area. Yeah, it may have a few odd corners here and there, and I'm sure you'll find things to despise. That happens in every project. I'm not a huge fan of the binary logging, for example. But that's just an example. I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision. Yeah, I've had some personality issues with some of the maintainers, but that's about how you handle bug reports and accept blame (or not) for when things go wrong. If people thought that meant that I dislike systemd, I will have to disappoint you guys. 1. http://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/06/30/0058243/interviews-... |
Sadly most of these debates gloss over that systemd has long since grown past being just a init replacement.
It has sprouted tentacles all over Linux userspace, and all of them are tightly connected to systemd sitting as init-in-chief.
Thus updating some higher level part of userspace, say the Desktop Environment, may well result in your Linux install getting a init-ectomy via the dependencies chain.