It's a classic joke. http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/studlycaps.html

the -d suffix is traditionally for service daemons. SystemD is not a service daemon.

Lowercase is a UNIX convention. SystemD does not have a UNIX approach.

Since SystemD is not a Unix service daemon it shouldn't be spelled "systemd" to prevent confusion.

This is...bizarre.

Should I pejoratively call you "CRaIg" because I think you don't match up to my standards of what a Craig, or even a craig, is? Is that okay?

I don't think it's okay. Names have meaning. It is a really minor bit of respect to use them correctly.

I don't follow. As you state yourself, "names have meaning". By conventions the developers actively disregard, the meaning of the name "systemd" implies several things that the program is not.

I think you replied to the wrong comment.

I've been pointing out that people do this, for some time.

* https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/08/msg00547.html

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14171389

I think that giving unflattering nicknames to powerful entities is a long-standing tradition, and a valid act of protest and free expression. Of course it won't convince an opponent, and it may backfire as a rhetorical device, but I empathise with people wanting to use it.

Moreover, the term "System D" is somewhat synonymous with the term "black market", which Wikipedia defines as a: "series of transactions that has some aspect of illegality or is characterized by some form of noncompliant behavior with an institutional set of rules."

That is a surprisingly good analogy for how systemd acts on a machine, but there is another analogy to a similarly worded term: "Substance D", from the novel "A Scanner Darkly". In the novel, it is described as an addictive psychoactive drug, also known as "Slow Death". Credit for that comparison goes to this foundational criticism of systemd:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/12/459