I didn't care much about the problem systemd was solving, I was content to let the init process go through without touching it.

Then one day several years ago I did an apt-get dist-upgrade and my system didn't boot after that. I have personally hit way more issues with unbootable systems or having to drop into single user mode to fix some BS with systemd. That was enough to make me dislike it, or convert into a hater, and switch most of my personal usage away from Linux.

I think it's gotten better since then. I still dread updating Linux boxes, because I know that some percentage of those updates will have a systemd bug introduced resulting in a non-bootable system or one where I have to manually fix it up.

Counter-anecdote, I switched to systemd all the way back in 2012 on Arch, even before it was mandatory and way before it was in a state where other distros felt comfortable switching and I remember to this day that after I did the conversion and hit reboot, an absolute panic hit me, I was 110% sure the system won't boot afterward, just because of how drastic the change was to perform on a live system, (because simpler upgres than that broke my system before). Since Arch is rolling is not like a new release came with systemd, no, you just switched your live system over.

I remember being absolutely floored when after that relatively complex procedure, not only did the system boot, but it booted faster. I think I became a fan that day.

To be fair to your view, I did observe fewer issues in Arch's systemd packaging vs. say, Debian. Arch I think is pretty good overall.

...and when you care quite deeply about the problems being solved, think they're being solved in a pretty good way, and are unsettled by the anti-systemd frothers literally sending Lennart death threats? (Like...this is bad, yo. There are arguments--bad ones, IMO, but arguments--against systemd. But the people who like systemd aren't sending death threats to Devuan people or whatever.)

What group is that?

To be fair, the ones sending death threats are contributing negatively, while the fork effort is a positive contribution to the situation. We'd appreciate not being lumped in with the worst offenders, if you'd be so kind.

A lot of the western world has devolved into tribalism and identitarianism. People of similar views on anything are lumped in en-masse and presumed to hold all of the same values, opinions and support all actions of the collective whole.

It's a shame that a lot of core values are lost in favor of these viewpoints.

Yeah. It is really sad. We're getting hyper-polarized options and information everywhere we look, and it's affected people's ability to argue a specific point if they detect any misalignment of interests. I've been calling it "casually dismissing someone's opinion by lumping it in with an ideology", but looking for something more concise.