Why should I spend 5 minutes googling for negative accounts of something I like? I honestly find systemd quite easy to work with. Untangling a maze of init scripts when a package maintainer wasn't being careful or someone made a mistake was miserable. Now startup is more more standardized, in my opinion. I don't like it as well as upstart, but I see no reason to go digging for problems. When I encounter one, I'll do it then.

> I see no reason to go digging for problems. When I encounter one, I'll do it then.

It was the same with init, but instead of digging into greppable script files, you need to dig into Google and systemd manpages first, then dig into the actual issues second.

PulseAudio may not serve every use case (and what does?), but it's been an absolute godsend for anyone who remembers the bad old days of Linux sound. Musicians, a small minority of users, can still install JACK to accommodate their needs.

Yes, PulseAudio explicitly does not aim to offer low-latency for real-time audio. Need to use JACK for that.

PulseAudio actually implemented a Dbus API to release its lock on the AlSA device. jack2 can use this automatically take over when it starts. There also exists two-way sound transport for sending sound from Pulse to JACK. If that was automatically set up also, then we would have a plug & play solution for pro/real-time audio on Linux.

> there's no reason why people who do not understand SystemD's deficiencies shouldn't be able to spend the same amount of time Googling for one of the many clearly written accounts of them.

I listed the ones I could find and stated why I disagree with them, you could've made this a useful post by listing some additional ones, but instead you choose to just spell, (miscase?), systemd wrong.