It is unfortunate that after all this time the basic reasons why systemd was introduced and has been so successful are pervasively misunderstood.
> The majority of Linux users are uninterested in the pros and cons of systemd. A small number are violently opposed to it, and a small number are violently opposed to those who are opposed to it.
Starting out by framing systemd in terms of opposition deliberately steers attention away from the issues that drive its adoption. The tone is moderate, but this is not good faith argumentation.
> I think there’s little argument that the main target for systemd is a general-purpose computer, with a modern, integrated graphical desktop
That is one of the targets. The main target is servers that run the web of services typically required to back up modern applications. What if an application depends on a resource server which itself depends on a remote filesystem being mounted and an event service running. Theoretically that can work with System V init, but how tricky is that to put in place and make robust? Administrators for systems vending complex interdependent services are the main target and always have been.
> Unfortunately, what makes systemd good for general-purpose desktop applications
Get it wrong and then run with it. Failing to understand what is driving adoption of systemd leads to arguments about it that don't really go anywhere.
> The more fundamental problem is that the people who most like systemd are distribution managers. Sure, there are administrators who like it, and defend it vigorously; but most end users and administrators don’t really care.
Not distribution managers, but system administrators. They are the ones with the complex needs that systemd serves. As such they advocate for it and because of the lack of working alternatives distribution managers switch to it in order to please the largest number of clients. Thinking of systemd in terms of desktop systems and distribution managers means misunderstanding why it is there in the first place.
> The majority of Linux users are uninterested in the pros and cons of systemd. A small number are violently opposed to it, and a small number are violently opposed to those who are opposed to it.
Starting out by framing systemd in terms of opposition deliberately steers attention away from the issues that drive its adoption. The tone is moderate, but this is not good faith argumentation.
> I think there’s little argument that the main target for systemd is a general-purpose computer, with a modern, integrated graphical desktop
That is one of the targets. The main target is servers that run the web of services typically required to back up modern applications. What if an application depends on a resource server which itself depends on a remote filesystem being mounted and an event service running. Theoretically that can work with System V init, but how tricky is that to put in place and make robust? Administrators for systems vending complex interdependent services are the main target and always have been.
> Unfortunately, what makes systemd good for general-purpose desktop applications
Get it wrong and then run with it. Failing to understand what is driving adoption of systemd leads to arguments about it that don't really go anywhere.
> The more fundamental problem is that the people who most like systemd are distribution managers. Sure, there are administrators who like it, and defend it vigorously; but most end users and administrators don’t really care.
Not distribution managers, but system administrators. They are the ones with the complex needs that systemd serves. As such they advocate for it and because of the lack of working alternatives distribution managers switch to it in order to please the largest number of clients. Thinking of systemd in terms of desktop systems and distribution managers means misunderstanding why it is there in the first place.