Lennart Poettering, the fellow who is turning GNU/Linux into a version of Windows, works for Red Hat.
> turning GNU/Linux into a version of Windows
The piece of software systemd is most like is launchctl, which doesn't come from Windows.
On the other hand, the biggest "Windows-ism" to reach Linux lately is io_uring. But it's both too technical and too useful to have some populist uprising against it.
systemd user sessions, socket activation, sysusers, dynamic users, systemd-homed, temporary directory setup, transient units, anything talking to the slice or control group APIs, containerization, firstboot, systemd’s whole “preset” system-wide configuration and policy mechanism for admins to say “what services do I want launched when installed and what services do I want to leave stopped until I configure them”, “stateless system” capabilities, and I’m probably forgetting another dozen.
I don't care about the init system - I reboot a Linux system once in a blue moon, for kernel updates. It's the rest of the complication and changes to a system that I had already made the effort to master. I understand that the New Linux is better for Enterprise, so that's what is going to happen. That doesn't mean I have to like Poettering gradually re-writing the entire base of userland. I just want to run simple servers, not a major enterprise.
There were several init replacements in the mainstream before systemd. OSX and Solaris both had their own, and they were as UNIX (officially certified) as you can get.
Also, as long as we're doing non-sequitors; Microsoft is more likely to buy Canonical than they are to buy RedHat or IBM.