Avahi is a fun whack-a-mole game where your computer hides the network connection. You win the game by remembering to kill processes and setting up stuff manually, like most games produced by LP studios.

edit: Other popular games include:

SystemD: hack your way through a blob of intractability. Try it on Nightmare mode, where you're only given access to a empty bootscreen, for a real challenge.

Pulseaudio: Experience the sound of no hands clapping, in a forest where trees are falling with no one there to witness it. Also, the forest is on fire!

It's not like free software has a shortage of talented contributors that people hate for a variety of reasons. At some point you have to actually point out the issues productively, rather than the boring character assassination, or just randomly saying "the software's broken it sucks!" like this is the Best Buy tech support line.

I mean, seriously, if you're smart enough to "kill processes and [set] up stuff manually", you're smart enough to disable/remove software you don't like all on your own like a grown adult.

Working is not the problematic part. There are two interrelated problems: how much complexity is introduced, and how to proceed when something is not working, or is flaky.

You, me, and our fellow posters know very well that Lennart's solutions are complex - in fact, more complex than the problem domain. Accordingly, the ability to narrow down, fix, or work around problems suffers. Systemd and PulseAudio aren't UNIX applications [1]; they are entirely new, rather opaque, sub-systems unto themselves. Thus they require separate knowledge, separate intuition, and separate skills.

All so I can seamlessly play music on TWO bluetooth speakers while also browsing logs without learning regex.

>Lennart Poettering is a dev who has contributed MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CODE

Massive amounts of code is a clear and present problem. Why is the solution more complex than the problem domain? Why is the success being measured by magnitude of effort, rather than by barriers removed, and standards adhered to?

--

[1] what makes an UNIX application? small POSIX applications tied together with shell scripts, communicating via pipes, exposing services as files, following the `Worse is better' and `Do one thing, and do it well' principles.

So, where's your solution? If it's so simple, where is your contribution?

The fact is, he did it. You haven't. I can't even begin to imagine how much crap Lennart gets everyday by people who think they know everything and yet never actually seem to write any code.

Have some respect for the guy even if you disagree with the way he works, because you know.. his code is being used.

dmix, jack, pipewire

* now maintained at https://gitlab.com/chinstrap/startup

This is not a valid argument, invalidating discussion of merit of thing based on not having personally created incarnation of said thing would remove 99% of debate of FOSS to no ones benefit.

Upstart is decidedly inferior to systemd; the event-based architecture is much harder to understand and apply than the target/dependency architecture of systemd. And systemd is in use in distros ranging from embedded (LibreELEC) to enterprise server, it must be doing _something_ right...

I enjoy the architecture, and hope to continue developing Upstart/startup or at least work with a similar model.

Are you suggesting that the alternative is to choose to just not support these features at all? (Which isn't implausible as a suggestion; OpenBSD doesn't support Bluetooth at all, for example. But in an ecosystem where everyone is building software to scratch their own itch, and then adopting the software that gains traction...)

So you end up with this weird situation where pulseaudio reroutes itself when JACK appears and no longer takes control of the sound card.

Why do we need to support two sound servers to take care of all the necessary features? I really hope pipewire fixes this use case and allows pro audio applications to work directly on top of pipewire while still supporting consumer friendly use cases like bluetooth speakers.

FWIW I've been able to get similar input latency with PulseAudio as with JACK, that's not so much the issue as synchronization. If PulseAudio introduced a timecode like JACK, that'd probably be close to enough.

If you were really just going for minimum latency, your recording application would use ALSA directly.

What kind of argument is that - so what?

All major Linux distributions are doing very well with systemd and it makes sense to have some kind of supervizor service (or collection of tools) on top of `init`. You can still tie together your applications with shell scripts and not run systemd. Since systemd it is simpler to admin different linux boxes - at least that is my personal experience - before that every distribution shipped their own shell scripts.

Systemd is fine and if it is so inferior to simple POSIX applications glued together, people should provide a better alternative. The grieve that people have against Lennart is overblown - we should thank him for his contributions.

This means "grown adults" can't uninstall the software components that they like, because they aren't individual components anymore.

Systemd would probably not be hated on as much if it was only a "better" init. But instead it is an opaque and centralized system that is replacing a growing list of tooling ( init, ntp, cron, syslog, network config, to name a few)

Just look at the GNU coding guidelines, it explicitly mentions that GNU tools are not to use static buffers and silently truncate long lines. Why? Because that's what proprietary Unix implementations were doing at the time! Silent truncation of long input lines! Is that "doing one thing and doing it well" (DOTADIW)? Hell no!

DOTADIW is an ahistorical description of Unix. A humble-brag with little basis in reality.

And also where those guidelines say that silent truncation of long lines should occur?

thanks

>"Avoid arbitrary limits on the length or number of any data structure, including file names, lines, files, and symbols, by allocating all data structures dynamically. In most Unix utilities, “long lines are silently truncated”. This is not acceptable in a GNU utility."

https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Semantics

So perhaps DOTADIW is a GNU philosophy, because it's one of the reasons GNU became so popular. Proprietary unix tools often did one thing and did it poorly, making GNU tools a breath of fresh air.

I think you misinterpreted parent’s statement, though, and/or they mistyped. The GNU Coding Standards says to not use static buffers, nor should GNU programs silently truncate long lines.

I hate to use the possibly overloaded term 'virtue signaling', but I definitely see a lot of this as a form of virtue signaling within the communities that posters sometime imagine exist, or imagine that they're part of. I've seen so much of it over the years that it almost has a smell to it. A very vocal and bitter personal hatred towards Lennart and Lennart-related projects is sometimes a leading indicator, especially when it's presented not in the context of meaningful discussion of technology, but simply as "init was perfect and never needed to change and people who think otherwise don't understand what makes Linux Linux", stated as a truism.

I think a lot of people really like the community aspect of Linux, reading and posting to forums all the time, and latch on to certain mindsets as being the mindsets of who they imagine the insiders to be- you're supposed to love this person unconditionally, you're supposed to hate this person unconditionally, this company is good, that company is evil, this software is good, that software is evil, and if you're a true insider in the community you'll parrot all the same lines as everyone else. But when I see it, no one involved appears to be an insider. It comes across more as teenagers arguing on Reddit about iOS vs. Android, where basically they've decided that whatever phone their mom got them is the best thing ever, and the other thing is terrible, and it's their duty to go online and spew vitriol about it. They think they're arguing stuff that's much much deeper and more technical than what they're actually arguing about, and no one involved has any actual understanding of the technology or industries or communities or histories of the things they're screaming at each other about. It's almost like vitriol for the sake of vitriol, and people just let it seep out as a demonstration of their in-groupness.

Which is not to say that there are plenty of valid reasons and places and ways to argue about the merits of Lennart and his software, as one example. I'm really not talking about Lennart in particular though. I'm not talking about people having valid arguments about valid issues. What I'm talking about the FLOSS equivalent of those teenagers and their "the phone my mom got me is better than the phone your mom got me, and that makes me a good person and you a bad person" sorts of arguments. It just all seems very petty and immature sometimes, and that is not a positive aspect of the community.

But that's not the real problem here! Free Software was always about the freedom of choice. With systemd millions of users worldwide were forced to switch just because the architecture was designed in this way. Among these users were sysadmins who have to deal with many different machines and hardware/software problems. Before the systemd era diagnosing and fixing them was easier. We had survived quite a few revolutions in the past and it's not like we are unable to learn new tools, but this time the change made certain things unnecessarily complicated and gave users no choice.

That doesn't mean other stuff couldn't have been better. Here's the problem the systemd argument: it's motte-and-bailey. Systemd is a huge collection of tools, not just an init system: it's got resolved, journald, logind, tmpfiles, bootctl, networkd, and more. However, whenever it's criticized, proponents fall back on "but it's a great init system!" I agree that the unit files are better than rc scripts in many ways. However, there's so much other baggage that comes with systemd. Many people who use systemd in serious production systems have to replace many of these parts: journald -> rsyslogd, tmpfiles -> scripts, bootctl -> grub, networkd -> networkmangaer (or other), systemd-timesyncd -> chrony. Systemd does the "PID 1" stuff fine, but isn't so good at the other stuff. The project has gotten to big for its britches, so to speak: there are ~70 total systemd binaries.

They also didn't do a great job of modularity, and don't use dbus like they should (dbus isn't built to be used with an init system; use a socket already). Rather, they have every thing depending on another. Suddenly, everything must re-tool to work with systemd or stop working. It basically unilaterally declared itself the standard.

Other stuff:

        * I hate binary logs

        * Lennart, Lennart, give me back my cgroups 

        * Stop stealing my cgroups to track processes  

        * Security is not great, nor is code quality.  This comes less from being inherently flawed and more from *sheer volume of code*, which is why you don't put that much code in PID 1.  More attack surface, more potential bugs.

Oh, and Lennart Poettering is also a jerk. Not an "I'm brash" kind of jerk (like Linus can be), but an "I'm an insecure person; don't critique my code" kind of way. Also, he thinks he's smarter than every one.

I think it's largely due to how the community has treated him. It's frankly disgusting.

PulseAudio mostly works, now, but I will be happy to see its low-latency successor displace it.

Systemd's only great sin is using up 100MB in each VM to do what should takevno more than 4M. As memory gets bigger, I run more VMs, so systemd usage grows apace. Maybe I should be running containers instead, but Qubes doesn't work that way.

I regularly kill PulseAudio to get bluetooth headset pairing to complete.

It doesn't excuse the community's behaviour either to be fair.

> He also has a nasty habit of forcing his work into places where it is not wanted (especially now that he works for red hat).

I seriously doubt he has such power.

The "community" cannot stop this. Either Lennart should work on how he handles such criticism/abuse, or Red Hat/IBM should hire a communications professional to insulate him from the outside world. Or he can keep the course and suffer the inevitable...

It's not right that he receives death threats, but the response to that unfortunate state of affairs needs to be realistic.

Who said "harshly", downvote anyone who insults randomly, yes.

> That won't stop it, and even if it did it still wouldn't stop 4channers with anime avatars on github from trolling him constantly.

So if 4chan doesn't stay civil then we shouldn't try to remain civil?

> There is no community solution to Lennart getting his feelings hurt.

But the community can be half of the solution, noone said it has to be a 100% one.

I'll reiterate: the notion of 'community' in this discussion is borderline meaningless and any attempt to govern it will fail for exactly that reason, and therefore any solution to the problem of SystemD developers feeling besieged that is predicated on governing the 'community' is, frankly, worthless.

Wow, are we insulting people like we're twelve now?

Again, I have to ask. Why are you not writing a replacement for systemd? Again, another person in this thread seems to think they know everything yet don't seem to have any code to show for it.

To use some analogy, imagine I, a non-cook, have been invited to a restaurant by friends. After the meal I say to the waiter "this food is way too salty!", and he replies, "Oh yeah, then go in the kitchen and replace our cook!".

What, you think we all don't have dayjobs and can just devote our time to...

1) learn to code C/C++ 2) learn about the OS 3) architect, code and debug a replacement

? Please don't be an absolutist and think "everyone can contribute to open source!", in the real world, time is finite.

Plus, isn't this the great thing about open source? If someone doesn't like systemd, they can write they're own. Of course, not one does..

> What, you think we all don't have dayjobs and can just devote our time to...

I'm only suggesting this to the people who comment online complaining how the most used implementation isn't up to their personal standards and that they know how it could be done better.

It's easy to complain and bitch online, that's the problem. Everyone seems to know the solution but no one seems to do it.

> Please be advised, I've downvoted your comments asking "if you know better, where's your code?"

Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

I upvoted you because you downvoted me.

I try not to get personal so normally I'm not downvoted for that at least, just being wrong heh.

I may not know how to cook (insert complicated dish here) but I can tell if it's too salty. Users of systemd / whatever software this man wrote may not have the time to do all the stuff I mentioned, but they know using/configuring the system is a nightmare.

> It's easy to complain and bitch online, that's the problem. Everyone seems to know the solution but no one seems to do it.

I repeat, they might not know the solution, just that the software tastes bad to them. Some of these complainers might be able to come up with a better solution, if they had the 3 things I mentioned before, but sadly, apparently, no one actually does. Otherwise a replacement would already exist. Of course it's another thing to get distros to adapt it.

Their lack of time/ability doesn't mean they're forbidden to say "this thing sucks!". IMO at least.

> Wow, are we insulting people like we're twelve now?

How is that insulting? It's pretty much true. It's not really nice, but it's not really mean either.

> Why are you not writing a replacement for systemd?

There are already replacements. I use them in several places, mostly openrc. I'm perfectly allowed to grumble that something's bad and pushed into most distros. Plus, I'm generally stuck using it at work.

Next time you complain about, say, your car breaking down, I'll be sure to advise you to go build your own car.

That's the point. It's not insulting and it makes you sound like you're twelve.

> Next time you complain about, say, your car breaking down, I'll be sure to advise you to go build your own car.

No, again. I see you're struggling. When my car breaks down, I ring a mechanic or take it to the garage. I don't go to the mechanic claiming to know exactly why my car broke down and how the manufacturer should change the specification to make it so that it doesn't break again. If my car keeps breaking down, I know not to use that model of car and try something else.

What you're doing is most likely using a piece of software, finding it doesn't suit your particular use case and then going online to insult the creator, and claim that you know how it should have been engineered.

It's completely fine that you don't like systemd. The problem is that a majority of people prefer it and that's pretty obvious from the distributions picking it up.

Stop and think for a while, imagine that's you who's created the software. Do you really think he's an evil genius trying to fuck up your system or is he just a hacker doing what he loves to do?

You also say "They also didn't do a great job of modularity, and don't use dbus like they should (dbus isn't built to be used with an init system; use a socket already). Rather, they have every thing depending on another. Suddenly, everything must re-tool to work with systemd or stop working. It basically unilaterally declared itself the standard.", but don't really have anything to back it up.

For example, Arch Linux reasons for picking up systemd:

    0) it is hotplug capable
    1) we can know the state of the system
    2) it is modular
    3) it allows dbus/udev to go back to doing the task they are meant to do
    4) we can reduce the number of explicit ordering dependencies between daemons
    5) we get a lot of security/sandboxing features for free
    6) systemd service files can be written and distributed upstream
    7) systemd is a cross-distro project
    8) logind will finally deliver on what consolekit was supposed to do
    9) systemd is fast

Not sure why it declared itself as standard.

We weren't using that model of car. Until the mechanic, during routine maintenence[0], attemped to steal our cars and replace them with Pintos.

0: Outside the metaphore: during 'apt-get upgrade' et al.

> That's the point. It's not insulting and it makes you sound like you're twelve.

> What you're doing is most likely using a piece of software, finding it doesn't suit your particular use case and then going online to insult the creator, and claim that you know how it should have been engineered.

It's not insulting, but I'm "insulting the creator"? What exactly are you contending?

> It's completely fine that you don't like systemd. The problem is that a majority of people prefer it and that's pretty obvious from the distributions picking it up.

No, "most people" don't necessarily like it. There are things it does better, and things it does worse. How is a piece of software to improve if every one comes out of the woodwork to white-knight for it when some one criticizes it?

> [you] don't really have anything to back it up.

Dbus stands for desktop bus [0]. It's stated purposes are communicating between desktop applications and between the desktop and OS [1]. It is not built to do low-level init stuff during bootstrapping or within the init itself, hence the name Desktop bus.

I stated that systemd has ~70 binaries; I was off by one. It's 69 binaries [2]. Though, that's a 2013 source; it's taken over other things since then, so I'm sure it's more.

With respect to incompatibility: you now have to use journald. You can forward, but that's additional hassle and more potential breakage. See [3] for more.

Over all, I'd appreciate systemd if I could do one thing: remove everything but the actual init stuff. As far as I'm concerned, there are better options for most of the other stuff.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Bus

[1]: https://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-tutorial.html#whatis

[2]: http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

[3]: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatib...

If you tried to insult me, but I didn't find it insulting, you would still have gone online to insult me even though I didn't find it insulting.

> No, "most people" don't necessarily like it.

False, you're not 'most people'. Every main distribution has picked it up. You're living in a bubble perhaps.

> woodwork to white-knight for it when some one criticizes it?

Oh god, now the white-knight defense? Come on, your argument starts okay and then you say absolute rubbish like this. I fail to see how calling some programmer a moron is going to help improve systemd.

> It is not built to do low-level init stuff during bootstrapping or within the init itself, hence the name Desktop bus.

It started that way, but that's no longer true. Some could argue that systemd allows dbus to go back to what it does best. Before dbus was being use to start long running daemons, etc.

> With respect to incompatibility: you now have to use journald.

Very valid reasons for this, this video[0] conviced me but perhaps you won't be swayed.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1lUeQVYuNs

Anyway, thanks for not getting personal in the comments. All the best.

I like unit files. I like having an optional watchdog for any given daemon integrated with my init. I don't particularly mind hostnamectl. I dislike resolverd but I see how some people could like it. I like having both signed binary logs and plaintext logs.

I wish the distros just made it simpler to pick and choose which systemd components we use at installation time. It would be better IMO than having to manually undo lots of integrations of parts of systemd I don't want and replacing them. So far the distro solution has seemed to be whole hog systemd or baby and bathwater, depending on the distro. Yes, we can set up our own base image and then maintain that, but should it be necessary?

I think they do a fine job. The only mandatory parts in most distros are pid1, udev, journald, logins and machined.

I have two Raspberry Pis running Debian, one of them uses connman, the other uses systemd-networkd. My desktops use NetworkManager + firewalld, and so on.

Avahi is simply an implementation of the ZeroConf service discoverability protocol, as also used by macOS’s “Bonjour”.

I don't have any other system daemons that like to drop into 100% CPU spin loops. Should I be happy it doesn't fork bomb? I guess I am.

The Tragedy of systemd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo

"systemd is, to put it mildly, controversial. As a FreeBSD developer I decided I wanted to know why.

I delved into the history of bootstrap systems, and even the history of UNIX and other contemporary operating systems, to try and work out why something like systemd was seem as necessary, if not desirable. I also tried to work out why so many people found it so upsetting, annoying, or otherwise rage-inducing.

Join me on a journey through the bootstrap process, the history of init, the reasons why change can be scary, and the discovery of a part of your OS you may not even know existed."

But that lacks explanatory power. Lots of things change and don't receive backlash, even in the desktop Linux domain. Plenty of people are skeptical of Wayland for instance, but the conversations tend to stay relatively cool-headed.

I think there are two things going on; the first and most significant is that most Linux desktop users (not sys admins or packagers, just desktop users) never had to know what a sysv init system was and never fucked with it, but then their distro switched, something broke (maybe their packagers' fault, maybe not!), they googled the problem and at the end of that Google dive they found out the answer involved a component they were previously unaware of, making itself known to them in a way that caused them hassle. Any upsides were washed out by this initial first bad experience. For me, I was using Fedora at the time so I knew I was getting bleeding edge shit and might get cut. That was exciting for me. It was my hobby, so I liked systemd. But that didn't blind me to the wants and desires of more typical desktop users who wanted the "just werks" experience.

(The other factor is that Lennart has bad social skills and it seems to rub off on the people he works with. Some might argue that the critics started it, but I don't care who started it. Stop jabbing your little sister or I'm turning this car around!)

So yes, he is prolific, his software does great things and his critics were definitely going too far, but he isn't completely innocent in regard to what happened.

Think about your second sentence a bit, and why it's true: major Linux distributions adopted systemd. Did they do that because it really caused a bunch of trouble or because a deliberative review process showed that it solved a number of hard problems?

A small percentage of people having very loud emotional reactions doesn't mean that it actually caused large numbers of problems and at least in the enterprise space it's been really useful for cleaning up long-running reliability and security problems by removing thousands of lines of SysV kludge and manual work recovering from problems.

But my point is a different one: If you manage such a project, you have to manage the change. And when you know that there are people who disagree with you on a fundamental level, it doesn't help driving your followers away by releasing breaking changes on a regular basis.

As an end-user, I remember for PulseAudio and systemd at least one instance where I had built something with it and after an update, it didn't work anymore and I had to adapt it.

So I don't believe that there was just a 'small percentage of people having very loud emotional reactions'. Instead, I think it was more like everybody had some problems adapting to systemd, but some saw the benefits it came with and others fought it as hard as they could (for various reasons).

So the problem isn't what Lennart had done (which is great), but how he got there. And I think Lennart would be happier today if he didn't do it the way he did.

It is hard for me to imagine what it could be doing with so much RAM.

I really like systemd, though it has flaws. I was using Fedora at home, and Debian on servers when it was new. As soon as it was straightforward, I started using systemd on my Debian machines (building from source, when Debian was not systemd-based) and it solved a lot of issues I'd been having, made it dead simple to get new services up and running.

When Arch Linux switched to systemd, that was what convinced me to switch to Arch Linux on the desktop. I had been getting a lot of value out of systemd on Fedora, but I had wanted to try a proper rolling release.

I have a similar story with PulseAudio. I've owned many systems with no hardware mixer over the years, and the other options had been total trash.

PulseAudio actually worked. When I wanted a feature, it tended to be available on PulseAudio. In 2017, when I spent a lot of time between a laptop and a desktop (now I mostly just use a phone/PDA and a desktop), I liked being able to switch seamlessly between them.

I set up a network audio device as my second default sink (after local headphones) on both machines, so I could move my headphones between them, and whichever device was playing audio would play it through my headphones. It took hardly any fiddling about, thanks to Lennart's other project: Avahi.

Over the years, I hear a lot of people criticizing the software, but taking the functionality for granted. What systemd, PulseAudio, and Avahi do for ordinary people using GNU/Linux on the desktop is generally not possible with competing packages, which is why these packages are ubiquitous. It's not some grand conspiracy to take away your beloved OpenRC; systemd is just better (warts and all) than the alternatives, for the vast majority of users.

Obviously Lennart has personal issues with some people in some places, like any human being, but that has nothing to do with the software.

Richard Stallman may not have the best Spanish elocution, and GNU has flaws; does this tell you enough to know to choose a different libc, or a different core utilities package?

“Life does not ask what we want. It presents us with options” — Thomas Sowell

It was almost like it appeared out of nowhere, written by one person who "thought he knew better" (maybe he did? but that's not the point), without any community input or discussion, and yet despite all of this somehow it got crammed into a distro (I don't recall which) - in what seemed to be an almost unilateral manner. A "my way or the highway" attitude of sorts.

It smacks of the whole "rockstar coder" mentality, where you have one guy on the team who forces everything to be his way, and he's begrudgingly recognised as probably right, and good for his work - but you still feel slighted as not having input on anything, because you're supposed to be a team (or a community).

What I really don't understand is how systemd has been so "infectious" - it seems like every distro is or has switched over to it...

...whereas init was (from what I know) more organic in how it came about, which might also explain its warts and other pitfalls that systemd supposedly addresses. I haven't been so deep in the weeds of linux to really understand all of the arguments of this nature; while I sympathise with the init crowd, I am but mostly a mere user of the system, who occasionally throws on an admin hat, but has found over time this has become less of a need for me to do (ah, for the olden days of Turbo Linux 2.0 and kernel recompiling - though my first Linux experience was via Monkey).

Had he introduced it in such a way to promote a discussion and dissemination of his ideas, maybe it wouldn't have turned out to be exactly like it is today, but it might have been more accepted (and maybe not as monolithic as I understand systemd to be - maybe it would have been more akin to a hybrid between his ideas and init?).

cppcheck could detect the bug without any hard setup effort (launching it in systemd codebase, with maybe an option to activate all checks, was enough) at least 2 years before it was revealed (probably more like at least 3 or 4, I don't remember the exact value). That's a fact easy to verify.

I suspect other tools could find it too, though I have not checked.

What that implies is more speculative, but there are some kind of "either or" situations that are extremely nasty. For example either RH (and all the other distro using it) did not analyse it, or they hid it for other reasons. The most reasonable hypothesis is that they just did not analyzed it. Which put them at least 15 years behind MS in some domains that were even more critical at the time (and still today) than 15 years before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfNt6MsLj0E&list=PLbzoR-pLrL...

Pay specially attention to "Making C Less Dangerous", "STACKLEAK: A Long Way to the Linux Kernel Mainline", "Sub-system Update: Kernel Self-Protection Project", "Year in Review: Android Kernel Security", "Sub-system Update: Linux Integrity Status Update", "Security Module Stacks that Don't Fall Over ".

If you want to systemd to adhere to really high standards then you're a hypocrite if you don't apply the same standards to every subcomponent of a non-systemd system, be it upstart, logrotated, cron, chrony or whatever else.

But it seems to me that you actually don't apply the same standards to the alternatives, they've all been hit with some vunerabilities, they all have bugs, they all have at least some terrible code, some lack maintenance or are just outdated. I wouldn't start throwing rocks from a glass house.

Oh and let's not forget that based on a pure empirical observation of the Linux ecosystem we can see that it is a better choice. And no, noone has been forced to use it(, neither was anyone forced to use Pulseaudio).

Obviously, since djb's daemon tools isn't used by default, which is exactly the sort of software that would be used by people who would rely on such functionality.

> It has high standards

One of SystemD's core contributers was banned from contributing to Linus' tree because his code was sub-standard.

> based on a pure empirical observation

...we should then also be able to see the Microsoft Windows operating system is a better choice.

And how many contributors of other projects have even tried to contribute to the kernel. 1 isn't a sample size you can make assumptions based on.

> ...we should then also be able to see the Microsoft Windows operating system is a better choice.

In certain cases it'd be delusional not to admit that.

Not saying it wasn't needed, but it was anything but stable or efficient at the beginning (and given said person's behaviour in dealing with bugs and vulnerabilities in systemd, it is not hard to see why)

For those not attuned, writing systemd as "SystemD" is a dogwhistle which comes from a time when Lennart specified that it wasn't meant to be capitalized, and this crowd went the other way just to spite him.

Top bantz here, kids.