Were you thinking of journald,... etc. instead?
I’m not sure what your link is supposed to prove.
One of them should really change to avoid this unfortunate confusion.
Systemd is a much worse implementation of a Launchd concept, just as Windows is a worse implementation of a Mac like GUI concept...
On the Linux front, I've been using Void and it has been pretty fantastic. Runit is the default init. It is a more hands-on distro (think Arch 10 years ago), but it's fast, slim, and doesn't have systemd.
Don't you think that there's a reason for that? That systemd solves the problems that make it possible to react to events and makes laptop-usable distros possible?
Meanwhile, enjoy launchd. Maybe you will find out, that they are conceptually similar.
If systemd had followed a similar philosophy, it would have been accepted without anything like the same amount of criticism. As it is, its scope creep is frankly absurd and dangerous.
The philosophy of systemd exemplified through PRAXIS is one of subsumption and uniformity (== taking away choice) under a singular vision defined by the systemd implementors. In practice, this means that you are penalized in various ways if you don't "buy in all the way". You can take a look at all the distributions that ship systemd by default and see how many have bought in all the way vs not using the "additional functionality".
It is one such solution. But there are others, which from an end-user perspective are much easier to deal with (e.g. runit, shepherd etc.).
So, for instance, my Void-powered laptop shuts down quickly and cleanly when I ask it to, and I don't have to wait 1:30 minutes (or more) on shutdown.
Some people just want to know exactly what is running on their system, and how it works. That's one of the reasons I don't use Windows.
(I do confess that I never took the time to learn systemd properly, but I highly appreciate it for introducing me to the BSD world).
Then again I just bought a new MacBook air and they keyboard gave out after two weeks and it gave me a rash.
Can't win at all.
He tried other open source operating systems and didn't find them acceptable. Sure, there are Linux distributions that have formed to avoid systemd, but it's not clear how long any of them will last.
Mac os isn't exactly unicorns and rainbows either, but there are some benefits of being part of a larger user base, too.
The problem with systemd isn't necessarily how it handles system startup and daemon supervision (although I don't care for that), it's that it subsumes so many other things, and with no technical excellence.
It isn't building in an NTP client, or a hostname resolver, or configuring your network, or taking over the system logging, or generating QR codes. It has a singular focus and design which makes conceptual sense. It's not a dumping ground for a disparate collection of poor quality alternatives to existing tools.
It's so hard to find a linux distro that actually works on a laptop but doesn't use systemd, so I eventually just gave up on Linux entirely.
That left me with BSD, Windows, and macOS.
I tried FreeBSD and OpenBSD but performance was atrocious and noticeably worse in almost every way than Debian and win7 on the same hardware. I'm sure BSD makes a good server OS but it's just not mature enough for serious work unless I was willing to keep my laptop plugged 99% of the time. But what's the point of a laptop if the OS performs so poorly it won't even last a 4-hour flight?
I similarly seem to be the last guy on earth who still remembers the bad old days of Microsoft's dominance so I won't pay for windows.
The winner by default is therefore apple.