Because these days most slashdot users don't even know a sysadmin.

Homeless people value rapid startup time more than almost anybody, because the library limits that number of hours patrons can use the free wi-fi per day. And homeless linux users usually have ancient, dilapidated laptops that are considered by others to be past end-of-life.

So I think the homeless guy has a legit use case for systemd, and people who want to choose something else should just leave him alone and let him have his systemd. Nobody is trying to force them to use it.

It is not up to you to decide if it is inevitable that others will choose systemd.

Who is trying to force who? People who hate systemd seem to hate it so much they want to destroy it, wipe it from the face of the Earth! systemd supporters don't really care what other people use, they want a better, modernized init running on their own systems. It is normal to have distros that would adopt a new init, and others that don't. There is no reason to be against systemd just because you don't want to choose it.

I use both every day. Emacs is the best code editor, and vim is the best system config editor. I've been using both for 15+ years.

And BTW, I'm running systemd and it didn't eat my cat or whatever when I use an old SysV initscript. Actually, it has backwards compatibility for that! While I do really like systemd, I haven't converted any of my own initscripts. Mostly because I'm the only one using them. If they were in released software, well, it is normal that SysV get replaced eventually and it is a small burden to write a dozen lines of code every 20-30 years when there is a large scale shift to a new startup system. Especially when most software doesn't need startup support!

No hatred is stronger than ignorant hatred.

So now your real complaint comes out. They rejected your contributions because your contributions were using the old system it replaced. No, they aren't going to want to roll in your SysV init scripts. But there is compatibility with them for the users. You can still use your init scripts, and write new ones.

You're just butthurt that they didn't accept your patch, that didn't even attempt to use the same technologies and languages that they're using. Fail.

yeah systemd showed up at my door with a baseball bat and demanded that I switch to a distro that uses it!

Sorry, false alarm, it was just the pizza guy.

This is actually ignorant lies. It is modular, but nobody is writing alternatives because the actual individuals parts are actually well enough written that they're hard to replace, so no distros do. And users don't make these choices, they just choose between distros.

It isn't "demonstrably" worse at anything, it is "subjectively" worse to people who don't like it. Most objective metrics, it is better at everything. Maybe you still don't like it for other reasons. Maybe those are great reasons. But no need to be dishonest about what type of choices are being made.

Sorry newbie, without a UID you're clearly in disguise. Busted!

Anyways, it was the old guard who was against linux back then. Linux was the new OS, trying new things. You try to place it as having been in opposition to windoze, but it really in opposition to commercial *nix. That end users who use it would otherwise have been stuck on windows was related to the high price of commercial *nix, that's it. Everybody I knew in the 90s that hated windows also at some point wished OS/2 had had available software, that Amiga hadn't crashed and burned, and that an unknown rich uncle would send them a fancy *nix workstation for Christmas.

The funny thing is to see somebody now claiming that those linux rebels were the old guard all along, and that therefore 20 years later they should be against anything new.

I remember in 2001 Linus said in an interview that he hoped people weren't still using Linux 10 years later, because he hoped something newer and better would come along.

The real solution of course to these disputes would be to have better distros and to have distros that make choices like SysV init and then commit to not changing any philosophical decisions or base technologies... ever. So then when new stuff comes out, people who use front-edge-following distros will have that new stuff thrown right at them, but people who use Stable distros would only ever see the new stuff by changing distros. As it is now, you can never choose a distro and be sure it will still meet your (unchanged!) needs in the future.

Because everybody else other than [that guy who is not cool enough for our clique] failed at writing a SysV init replacement that actually functions well and doesn't introduce new problems.

I guess name-calling doesn't translate directly to code.

IMO you have it exactly backwards on all the factual parts. I can agree that people will have different preferences, and if somebody enjoys using SysV init, great!

But on a more factual level, it is somewhat... absurd to claim that systemd does what it does poorly. To get that view, instead of listening to SysV fans, you'd need to listen to people who wanted the systemd features, but found they didn't achieve what they claimed. And if you look around, that is not the nature of the dispute at all. The dispute is entirely over 2 things: who wrote systemd and is he too uncool to use his software, and what features are actually desired in an init system?

The rational, technology-based arguments against systemd are all related to the desired features. The code itself is being heavily used by people who consistently report that it does indeed work as advertised; it does well what it does. Rational opponents who dislike the featureset of course don't see that as a good thing.

But if you can't get passed the hyperbole to find the real dispute, how can your position make sense?

systemd is better at every specific thing than SysV init. People who understand both and like SysV like that it doesn't do much, and that is fine. But that is not the same as what you're claiming.

He's accurately describing the reasons for systemd and the reasons so many of us use it.

He's giving the main, standard party line. It is not "propaganda," it is how people with a different view than you really feel about it.

Compare that to your hyperbole that misrepresents the choice, and ask yourself who is producing propaganda!

systemd is the solution that exists though, and is being standardized on.

All of the other SysV replacements either lack the features, or have significant problems.

I don't think you even know what "embrace and extend" means. Odd, given your user ID. Alzheimer's? Oh, wait, I get it, it was just "flamebait."

Yeah, system admins and developers just loved the only SysV init and writing init scripts! They hate it when they have to switch to systemd and instead of writing a giant obtuse bash script, they just have to create a symlink. Especially since every has the simple syntax and semantics of bash memorized, and they might have to look up what to symlink to since they're new to systemd.

You seem hobbled by the bizarre idea that my understanding of the existing legal standards for different parts of the process is somehow colored by my desire for one outcome or the other.

No, the law is the SAME regardless of which side of a case you're on.

D'oh!