The problem with your analogy is that while a lot of people did move from python to python 3, a lot also stopped using python all together because the python2/3 split demonstrated that the python devs were willing to throw everyone's work out the window for fun. There was no technical reason why backwards comparability wasn't possible. Multiple good solutions were put forward. They were all rejected for silly reasons.

A lot of that "python2 will never die" crowd left python all together, and they are better off for it because they won't have to deal with the next time python decides to throw everyone's work out the window.

But python programs are much more complex than init scripts systemd replace. It is more like people hate change and are lazy to learn a new thing.

Mamagement has 99 problems. Holding a status quo is about minimizing the backlog more than hating change as such.

Even when we can show am improvement in security and usability, and lower training cost because of consistency, it's still another mouth to feed.

If it provides sufficient benefits (which systemd does), it is a no brainer.

As a technical matter, sure.

As a business/ management matter, we frequently cannot do the technically obvious thing due to other constraints.

I would agree, but systemd has been around quite some time now. At this point it is technical debt not upgrading to it, unless you use something better.

> the "[python] will never die"-crowd finally accepted they where not going to win

Why are you talking in the past tense? We have done no such thing. Death to python 3; long live python.

Obviously I don’t mean you don’t exist any more, but the surveys show enough converted that your views on pythons future are no longer relevant in the bigger picture.