Seems like Linux could standardize without radically changing everything.

Seems like Red Hat breaks real standards. And replaces those standards with Red Hat standards. And then says "hey look, we've standardized things (and we've done it in such a way that now Red Hat can take over Linux! Yay!).

You are manufacturing special situations to support your conclusion.

Are you kidding about the server? If a service is critical, the cost of an extra server is nothing. Also, if you are running all the stuff you say you, how "under utilized" could the server be?

Linux has it's problems - no doubt about it. But boot time would rarely top the list. SystemD is solving a problem that is not there. The radical changes that are required to utilize systemd are not justified, not by a long shot.

> we should also condemn people "jokingly" saying they're gonna put a hitman on anyone.

I agree. But we need a sense of perspective as well. I have received death threats. Lots of people have.

There is a guy named Pat Condell who posts videos on youtube that are critical of Islam, he get hundreds of death threats.

I agree that death threats are not cool. But they are really not all that shocking either.

> Bear in mind, you only see the anti-systemd view on Slashdot

I call total bullshit.

Five seconds of googling and you will find moutains anti-systemd views.

How about this for a start:

http://boycottsystemd.org/

As I understand it:

1) Systemd has a much slower shutdown, which means a reboot takes much longer.

2) Debian can be rebooted in 30 seconds. So even if boot was speeded up, it is a negligible advantage, and hardly justifies such a radical change.

3) Linux servers are not rebooted very often, making supposed advantage even more negligible.

4) If a service is critical, there should be a parallel server running it. Which make boot time even less meaningful.

5) According to this article at Distro Watch: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20141027#qa : boot times are not improved. That has been my experience as well.

You are happy about Red Hat's hostile takeover of Linux?

> So this whole uproar about systemd is NOT about whats best for or what common users want, what its really about is a few sysadmins forcing their own way on everyone else, and actually about making Linux difficult to use for common users.

I think you have that backwards. A few sysadmins do have the power to force any radical change like systemd. Only a company, like Red Hat, has that kind of power.

Let me fix your statement for you: so this whole uproar about systemd is NOT about whats best for or what common users want, what its really about is a few developers at Red Hat forcing their own way on everyone else, and actually about making Linux difficult to use for common users.

I call bullshit.

The premise of your - suspiciously highly modded - post is: anybody who does not like systemd does not understand it. Well that is just plain crap.

Lots is known about systemd. Lots of serious problems have been documented in detail. Lots of extremely knowledgeable Linux admins do not want systemd.

Some people think honest criticism can be more useful than mindlessly praising everything Red Hat does.

> only see the anti-systemd view on Slashdot,

Bullshit. Slashdot has nearly as many systemd shills as microsoft shills.

Usually the shills use dismissive arguments, and ad hominem attacks, i.e. anybody who does not like systemd is a hater, a grey beard, stuck in the past, etc.

I run CentOS 6.5 and CentOS 7. I like CentOS 6.5 far better: much better GUI, and no useless systemd. Also, 6.5 boots faster.

Exactly. I have not seen one post that makes a strong argument for SystemD. Certainly nothing that would just justify such a radical change being forced on everybody.

As I understand it:

1) Systemd has a much slower shutdown, which means a reboot takes much longer.

2) Debian can be rebooted in 30 seconds. So even if boot was speeded up, it is a negligible advantage, and hardly justifies such a radical change.

3) Linux servers are not rebooted very often, making supposed advantage even more negligible.

4) If a service is critical, there should be a parallel server running it. Which make boot time even less meaningful.

5) According to this article at Distro Watch: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20141027#qa : boot times are not improved. That has been my experience as well.

If a service is all that critical, shouldn't you have parallel servers? And would that mean that there is not good reason to auto-restart a broken service?

> and then once in a full moon when a cosmic ray hits the process and kills it, systemd will just restart it.

What if it happens more than once in a blue moon? What if there is a serious problem, and it happens all the time?

I think most sysadmins would rather be notified, so they can fix the underlying problem, rather than have a broken process constantly restarted.