So, why not leave systemd in "user centric" distros like standard ubuntu ; but keep init as default in server-distros
Because process management is really important for servers as well. The idea that it is only useful for desktop is a myth. The direction of the Linux server ecosystem is towards PaaS and containerization. The idea is to divorce hardware from specific workloads entirely where individual boxes just becomes a node with compute and storage resources as part of a larger superserver. Essentially a shift back towards a mainframe like paradigm. Init doesn't work well there either.
There are some obvious niche cases where init is superior but they are niche and few. This isn't about ease of use. It is about the fact that Linux in the server space is now becoming something other than a cheap Unix for use in niche cases for stuff that isn't running on industrial Unixes or mainframes. Instead Linux is finally really genuinely replacing those systems and now needs to offer the functional depth they provided.
I think systemd is excellent for servers, I think the wide adoption by PaaS vendors proves this. I also happen to think process management is good for most embedded systems. Because they often have less support, both human and other infrastructure being able to do internal process management is a plus. So I disagree strongly that systemd is about desktop, that's a myth.
That being said though I agree that systemd is a bad choice for low memory embedded systems. But frankly I think Debian is mostly a bad choice for low memory embedded systems. Those really do need specialized distributions and those specialized distributions exist. Certainly Debian can feed those as a parent distribution and there is no reason that for those packages which are appropriate for embedded I'd expect people to supply patches to make the package work with cheaper (in terms of memory / CPU) init systems.
Your history is a bit off here. Linux's earliest intent was as a workstation OS. An operating system that Unix users could administrate and on their x86 box. A $2k alternative to buying a $7k Solaris workstation. RedHat itself came from this desktop mold, before the LAMP stack made the real action cheap server alternatives. Mandrake, Caldera Desktop, Corel Desktop were all doing easy desktop before Ubuntu. What was unique about Ubuntu was: it was free and gave away the CDs. Everyone else was trying to make money selling the operating system.
What you are right about is that Ubuntu created a generation of Linux users with no experience with other Unixes or often other Linuxes. In so far as Linux was ever successful on the desktop Ubuntu was the form of that success. Your paranoia about "disruption" and "the establishment"... is simply that. Exactly what do you think in the 1980-90s you were doing to the mini computer culture of the generation before you when you made client server cheap and ubiquitous?
For example, RedHat in 1994-6 was selling a commercial X-Server as an option because XFree86 was too hard and too crappy. That wouldn't have been the case if no one cared about ease of use or just doing bug reports.
As for the "no plan" that was part of Linux culture from the beginning. It was one of the things that distinguished the GNU community from the 386BSD guys (and the children that spun off to be the today's BSDs).
systemd is able to have server sockets and listen to them creating the underlying process on an as needed basis. One of the reasons the Unix shell was so successful was because there were all these little utility programs around that could be easily patched together via. scripting. This made simple applications really really easy in Unix. What systemd does is allows the creation of something like this for application services. You could have hundreds of thousands of socket services being offered by a collection of applications always available but not consuming resources until needed. Which allows applications to mainly consist of just pasting together services from other applications in unique ways.
To do this though the system has to be doing more than just simple initiating services during boot it needs to talk on other roles. This is one of the reasons that systemd is designed for process initiation all the time.
OK I'll try this. Traditionally Init services were about starting processes. They didn't have capacities for keeping processes running. Which meant that for processes that need to be kept running and for which there was a real possibility of failure (most of them) the init had to start a process management system which then started the functional process. This has been the status for years. With systemd there is a process maintenance component standard in the init system. Which means that processes not only start but are capable of being kept in a stable state easily and automatically. Process management stops being something system admins work hard at and instead becomes something that happens out of the box.
Maybe I'm unique in this regard, but as an admin, if something goes down on one of my servers, I want it to stay down until I intervene.
I'd want to have the option, but for the default behavior to be that it stays down. I feel like unfortunately, unless you've lived a charmed life where you only have to work with software that's high quality, you will probably run across some server running some piece of crap software that can be a bit crashy. Yes, I've run across software like that on Linux servers too. And personally, ideally, I like to have the easy ability to control what happens when something crashes. Should the server ignore the whole thing and keep chugging along? Should it attempt a restart? Should it wait 10 minutes, and then attempt a restart? If the attempted restart fails, should it make a second attempt? At what point should it notify me?
I like when I can have control over that kind of thing, if possible, and I'd like to have that control be easy and reliable.
Well no, he's right. It's just a tautology-- reliable servers don't crash. It's kind of like, "No daughter of mine is going to get pregnant out of wedlock!" I can say that as long as I'm willing to disown any that get pregnant out of wedlock. If she gets pregnant, then she's no longer my daughter.
So reliable servers don't just crash, but unfortunately a large percentage of the servers out there that, for one reason or another, aren't 100% reliable. I sure wish I had software that would work well on those.
The fundamental problem is that companies with a legally-granted monopoly for delivering high-speed internet are also allowed to sell content.
I agree with this part of your post, at least, and have been making the same argument for years. If the companies providing the infrastructure were not making money from selling content, and were only serving as "dumb pipes", then their business incentive would be in pushing customers toward higher-bandwidth (and therefore more expensive) connections. In that business model, companies that can provide content to saturate slow connections become very important, and so it seems likely that they would be falling all over themselves to provide a better connection to Netflix.
Instead, the Infrastructure providers have no incentive to increase content availability, because any piece of available content becomes competition for the content that they are trying to sell. That's a bad system. Unless you have an effective regulatory system, the ISPs will find ways to push towards a walled garden AOL-style internet, charging for access outside of the walled garden.
However, I don't think this is an example of "net neutrality" missing the mark. Net neutrality is a concept, and divorcing infrastructure providers from content providers is one way in which net neutrality could be promoted.
They also have a monopoly on sales of computers licensed to run the OS X operating system, which means jack squat to antitrust law because there are other PCs out there, just like there are other phones out there.
OSX would apply equally. It is illegal to use your power in one domain over a customer to restrict their actions in an unrelated domain. If Apple were to use its control over OS X to try and restrict their customer's choice of cars that would still be illegal. Having a monopoly obviously makes it worse and shifts the burden but it doesn't change the underlying offense.
I get that. But humans right now are numerous in almost every habitat on the planet. A gradual falloff isn't remotely like extinction. Extinction becomes a real possibility at something like 1000 humans. That's 28 halvings or 56 generations or around 1400 years of contraction. That's a very long time to suppose that a trend continues. Especially given the trend is self correcting as resources become more abundant as the number of humans decreases.
satisfies the political, economic, and technological realities of today.
Nonsense. They most certainly have. Gradually shift to green. What we spent on the Iraq war would have been more than enough to fund America's switch to primarily being on wind power.
There are about 7.25b people. There were about 1b people in 1800 and I don't think anyone would consider the population to be going extinct then. Right now in the lowest reproducing countries the rate is 1.3 children per female. That induces halving in population per 2 generations. Or about 6 generations so even if we were to have the lowest rate in the planet we would be in 200 years about where we were 200 years ago. At that point resources would be abundant.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly in mobile app sales.
They do have a monopoly on app sales for Apple devices.
. Ford doesn't get sued for changing Ford motors to be incompatible with aftermarket stuff,
That's still cars. If Ford were to expand into coffee shops and create a custom cup holder that would only work with Ford coffee shops coffee cups (not available anywhere else) that might very well be restraint of trade because they would be using their car position to create unfair competition for coffee.