i was forced to use systemd professionally when it was buggy and broke all the time in its first releases in the red hat eco system; so it's fair that some people would hold grudges against it.

Its just easier for me to dualboot windows. Im too dumb to find how to do it with systemd :p

Most of them think that they’re making a point about an argument their side lost almost a decade ago.

To keep the system simple and transparent.

The kernel is already monolithic enough without adding another piece of monolithic software that everything depends on. IMO the Unix philosophy means we should have interchangeable parts.

There's some amount of user error here but when I did use systemd I had a hard time turning off services I didn't want because they were in the wants-to-have entry of other services. It's like a separate config area to maintain with a specific maintenance tool software instead of flat files.

I'm unfortunately using distros with systemd now tho.

What actually are the advantages of system rc over systemd?

Guix uses shepherd so yeah

It's a give and take honestly.

System-d has better logging. Until you have something that needs to really really log. You can argue that if you have something that's that dependent on logging it shouldn't be logging through the console but it's worked fine for decades. Auto pruning of logs isn't necessarily ideal. Getting console logs and assist logs as a pain in the ass.

Same goes for service dependencies we had this sorted it was answered via run levels and naming. It wasn't necessarily the most elegant solution but it was simple and there was very little to go wrong.

The tools to manage the services and logs are needlessly complicated. Service start, service stop, service status, service log, service enable, service disable. And I shouldn't have to reload the Daemon every time I make a change.

This isn't to say that it's all bad. It's flexible, and for most workflows, it's very automated and very light touch. The other pruning on the log file says probably saved a lot of downtime, a whole lot of downtime.

It's really well suited to desktop.

Service creation is somewhat easier.

Dependencies are more flexible than run levels.

To be honest I wouldn't go out of my way to run in a non-system distro but I would feel a little sigh of relief if something I was screwing with was still init.d

What a loser, not only is it an anime thing it refuses to socialize

I've been using linux for ~2 years now and only know one of these (GUI installer), anyone smarter than me can explain what they are?

Guix integrates with shepherd wonderfully because they're both Guile-based

I think service descriptions being functional scheme code makes more sense in a way than systemd's runtime.

More Code in Kernel-space = less secure

Systemd = a lot of Code in Kernel-space

Because I left Windows precisely to avoid the kind of shittery that systemd is doing.

It's absolutely no coincidence that the people who have developed the stuff that's brought the most degradation to Linux - systemd, PulseAudio, Gnome's "user has no right to themes" attitude - all come from a Microsoft background or explicitly work for Microsoft.

I'd have far less of a problem if systemd was split into more practical, actually independent things that actually worked and distros didn't buy their snake oil so easily. But for the time being, to me, the systemd experience is pretty much like the PulseAudio experience, what with the whole "waiting 120 seconds for a network interface to activate that it's not going to because it's the damn ethernet port and I'm on the road so the cable is not connected, stupid letter-potter dipshit".