Linux developers have created dependencies on Linux. Portability is a lot of work and perfect portability does not exist.

If you think you don't want systemd, why don't you use BSD?

> Linux developers have created dependencies on Linux.

Sorry, ignoring the rest of the thread: this statement isn't true even marginally. There are linux distributions that can operate on other kernels than Linux. Debian was my favourite choice for this with their HURD (https://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/) and kFreeBSD (https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/) implementation.

The GNU userland itself does not depend on Linux either.

You can run GNU utilities on MacOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD.

> There are linux distributions that can operate on other kernels than Linux.

Then by definition they're not specifically a Linux distribution?

Richard Stallman agrees with you.

I’m happy to take a different name, but Wikipedia at least refers to it this way.

Debian themselves say that they’re an operating system.

Regardless; many (if not most, if not close to all) utilities developed on top of Linux are portable across not only distributions, but other kernels or even operating systems.

It’s not fair to say that “those people who develop on systems with Linux kernels only support linux”.

There are cases where you might want to use Linux (for the hardware support, or for the userland) but without systemd: e.g. if you want to use musl libc, Lennard has said clearly he won't fix the incompatibility https://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop... "we will rely on good APIs exposed in the generally accepted Linux API which is the one glibc exposes" (i.e. he won't integrate any required patch to make systemd work without glibc's nonstandard behaviors, and musl doesn't aim for a bug-for-bug compatibility with glibc).

Lennard now works for Microsoft anyway. It clearly suits him better.

Because systemd is not the reason why people choose to use Linux over a BSD.

Do your homework. This has caused enough wars, hatred, threats, splits and forks already over the years.

I mean if you look at it from that perspective systemd problem seems to be "incompetent people don't like it"

We got group of clowns that repeat stuff like "but sysV is simple, init scripts are simple to make" and we have (...had, after migrating off) thousands of lines of init script fixes to prove that they are not that simple to get right, all replaced by few lines of system.

Then there is another group of clowns repeating "but it's too complex, we don't need all of the unit features", then proceed to put that features in separate app that works badly (monit), separate app that is just different init system in disguise (supervise, which is entirely fine piece of software that does it thing well), or just don't do anything serious with their systems in the first place.

I have plenty of complaints about many things in systemd but I won't pretend it didn't save us thousands of lines of code thanks to some of those features and made running more complex stuff trivial.

For example one of our is "wait for network -> download key from key server -> decrypt partition -> mount encrypted partition -> start the services". init.d version of that was... gnarly at best, and pretty fragile, it was trivial under systemd with nearly no actual scripting needed.

Few people would defend sysvinit, and few would argue against systemd as an init and rc system.

People complain against systemd as a tightly coupled collection of subsystems replacing previously very loosely coupled subsystems. Those subsystems have turned straight from bazaar to cathedral, so of course this will raise concerns.

The debate isn't systemd vs sysvinit, but s6 vs shepherd vs runit vs systemd, bazaar vs cathedral, and choice vs absence of choice.

It is misleading to point to sysvinit failures while arguing in favour of systemd, because the latter is not the only alternative to the former.

As for the calling all opponents of systemd "incompetent", this is just plain bad faith.

> Do your homework.

You assume I don't know what systemd is or why people have complained? This is frankly a rude comment to make and shows yourself in a very poor light.

I thought it was pretty common knowledge in 2022 that systemd is fine. It's the default in the vast majority of Linux distros. The vast majority of people have gotten over the drama of change. I was asking for a specific reason why someone was complaining about it now. I expected the reason to be new. Complaining alone doesn't add much to the discussion. You're dismissive comment also doesn't add anything to the discussion.

> I thought it was pretty common knowledge in 2022 that systemd is fine.

You thought wrongly.

> The vast majority of people have gotten over the drama of change.

Implying the only reason to object to systemd is "the drama of change".

> You thought wrongly.

In 2022 the majority of Linux distros are using systemd: Arch, Debian, RHEL, OpenSUSE... including derivatives like CentOS/AlmaLinux/Ubuntu/Manjaro. Sounds to me like the common knowledge is that systemd is fine.

> Implying the only reason to object to systemd is "the drama of change".

There's nothing in your reply that says otherwise.