I never had any horse in systemd/init.d and wasn't too familiar with the issue until I watched this presentation. systemd seems reasonable enough after considering it.
Alpine & Gentoo are on OpenRC, Void is on runit, the BSDs have always had their own init, everything else I can think of is either on systemd, or hardly significant.
I mean, sysvinit was horrible, and systemd is horrible in very different ways, just wondering who and why is holding on.
Systemd is fine. I've used it for years, never once had an issue. And the "Unix philosophy" is completely overrated, it provides no value. So I don't care in the least if it's a gigantic ball of code.
If this is your idea of an argument as to why this move is bad, then you have no leg to stand on.
Yeah, these giant balls of biary code like GNU & Systemd are terrible. There should be a new project & legal foundation for every tool, organizations need to follow the UNIX philosophy.
The systemd transition was rocky early on but we're way past that and it works great. I say this having dealt with systemd in production since the early days and IMO there's no reason for continuing to hate on it.
You're right, but Red Hat led Debian/Ubuntu over the systemd cliff.
(Because, you know, a gigantic ball of binary code is better than runit/s6/sysv/etc. /s)