BSD is a major commodity ecosystem for end-consumer products. I'd wager that there are more MacBooks and iPods out there running OSX and iOS flavors of BSD than there are Linux ones. They just suck in the server space, though, and that's where Linux cannot at the moment be questioned, let alone defeated.
Ironically, systemd is quite well suited for system designers creating embedded products, or those where there's effectively no "middle layer" between the naive "true end user" and the original builder/vendor -- a locked down iOS or an OS X system where the terminal-level control isn't needed.
The folks most objecting to systemd are in the server space -- true OS system admins who design and integrate the architecture, and are responsible for keeping things up and running.
Yeah, systemd+busybox might be perfect for the next OpenWRT embedded IoS device -- but it's not what I'll want on the next massive Dell server I'm responsible for at work.
Seriously, though. Although I can't see myself switching wholesale back to BSD, and the long term *nix-esque commodity (non-specialized) ecosystem will revolve around Linux for the foreseeable future, there are enough people frustrated by the OS vendor directions that it's good to have a backup.
Think of BSD as a third party, to keep the primary two enterprise Linux vendors in check should they decide to ignore their constitu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H users too much.
Medical studies in particular: you really don't want the public to have access to the private medical data which is used in medical studies.
I can not see how this is a valid argument -- of course such data should be anonymized and not traceable to an *individual* patient (this is where privacy kicks in), but it is done in publicly published medical research anyway ("Patient A [not Sam Smith!] was responding to treatment... ").
As to temperature data -- if there is suspicion that it is tainted by "local political concerns" -- should we even consider it to be valid *scientific* data?
Ban people with an opposing point of view? Google deciding intentionally what's "true" and "not true"? Only people with approved viewpoints get a chance to place ideas out there?
Perhaps he author might want to take some time to Google "epistemically closure," followed a little later for some basic overviews of the history of mankind.
Because systemD is being pushed by red-hat. And red-hat makes money, no their 'entire' business model is selling support.
So would they want a piece of software that you can use yourself correctly? No, they want a piece of software that is so arcane and labyrinth ridden that you have to pay them to tell you how to use it.
I can't say this is fair. Was RH's support level going down? They were doing fine with init processes that were composed of shell scripts too.
From what I've heard, there's serious debate *within* RH about systemd as well; not everyone's been on-board with it internally.
I think a lot of this can be blamed squarely on Fedora leadership... Over the course of about 3 years between Fedora 14 and Fedora 19, it feels like all the sysadmins looking product stability in the project got replaced with developers looking for new/shiny problems to solve with some new Big Idea. Hence systemd, RPM spec file churn, UsrTmpfs, and other monstrosities.
One thing I never understood is why no one's come up with an ad blocker that still requests ads in the background, but doesn't display them (as an option).
Quite literally, everyone wins in that scenario. Advertisers get to feel like they're changing the world. Web sites are funded. We don't have to deal with advertisements.
And manufacturers/service providers are less likely to deal with the wrath of people like me who go out of our way to avoid products with offensive advertising. We won't know any better.