> Systemd has undeniably brought some good things to Linux. It's much faster and less buggy than the mess SysV init was.

http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Init

Take your pick. Most of them likely predate systemd by up to a decade.

Never mind that a lot of the "mess" of sysv could have been avoided by punting the boilerplate into its own script file that the various services files could import.

Recently i find myself wondering if RH have some kind of inferiority complex vis a vis Solaris. After all, the latter was a "true" descendant of the one true Unix...

Less buggy? See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11008449

The mounting of efivarfs has nothing to do with systemd. efivarfs is provided by the kernel and is intended to be used by the userspace read-write.

Not to mention that it is a hardware issue if clearing efi vars renders a board un-POST-able.

Yes, I know, and that's terrible. But SysV init was flawed by design as it didn't prevent e.g. race conditions between services.

So systemd is not flawed by design?

It is, but it doesn't suffer from some SysV issues.

It brings other issues of its own [1], and it is at odds with the Unix philosophy.

[1] http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/