That's a good list of 30 or so myths and a pro-systemd explanation. It would be interesting to have an anti-systemd rebuttal. The explanation that systemd is non-monolithic "in design" because each binary can be separately packaged "in packaging phase" was pretty lame because it confuses the topic to "win", although also completely irrelevant (A better answer would have been, ok, assume inductively for the sake of this discussion that it's monolithic... given that inductive assumption, so what?).

1) Are there any significant/serious myths not listed?

2) Does it matter? What I mean by that is the systemd wars remind me a lot of the sound wars from years ago. $user installs a sound system (alsa, pulse, oss, doesn't really matter). It'll probably either work perfectly or miserably fail. If it works, $user will blindly love that sound system and brag about it. If it doesn't work, $user will trash talk it all over the internet. The facts don't seem to matter, just the results of one anecdotal experience. In an environment like that its nearly impossible to learn anything from the community about systemd.

It reminds me a lot of those geniuses who post on world wide forums how no one in the world should sign up for $cellphone_provider because their local tower has poor coverage. That's just great, as if the other 99.9999% of the population should care.

Of course its a "pro-systemd explanation", it's Lennart Poettering's blog. Not that it takes anything away from his explanations, it's a good post. One can at least assume he knows what he's talking about...

Seems you're just confusing things.

Why do you suggest systemd is monolitic. What is the problem actually? There are various independant parts. E.g. the logind bit is now used by Canonical on upstart. Seems your issue is some theoretical problem while in practice systemd is just not monolithic.