I'm not against the "concept" of systemd, I think the BSDs need a "system" layer as well, just not systemd. The ideas are amazing, the implementation is the problem.
Even if you don't like systemd (I don't but I live with it because I never have to interact with it anyway), this is such a weird way to phrase it. Imagine saying "Linux has `apt`, not my favorite thing out there. That left me with two major options: Linuxes without apt (Arch, in my case) or BSDs." Just... change the program. Apparently Arch can switch over to sysvinit just by installing two packages from the AUR (see https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/SysVinit), Devuan exists, et cetera.
Of course, the author was sold on BSD before making this argument - and fair enough, at least it's a free system. But in my opinion it's ridiculous to discount a family of systems because of one common program.
a) I ran into an issue with changes in startup scripts in Debian which meant I could no longer hit ctrl-c to stop network initialization on a laptop when it couldn't get a dhcp lease (it was either not connecting well to wifi , or trying to get a lease on a disconnected wired NIC; it was a while ago, I don't quite remember)
b) there have been many secuirty issues in systemd and systemd-* utilities. Quite a few of which were repeats of issues existing daemons had been through, that shouldn't have been repeated.
c) I have read that in default configurations a user's programs will be terminated after the user logs out; that's not acceptable for me, and a large change in default behavior
For me, systemd is yet another churny subsystem that drives aggrivation, so since I was already exposed to FreeBSD through work, it made sense to me to go in that direction at home, instead of sticking with Debian and accepting systemd.
Realistically, it’s pretty snarky and unconvincing to all but the choir to whom he preaches.
The init system is nice, but why the hell does it re-implement svchost.exe
All configuration is done with .ini style files so that no need to use special parser for /etc/network/interfaces.
Disclaimer: I jumped on linux few years ago when systemd already had some momentum, so that I wasn't used to either init or systemd. I found the later easier to pick up.
systemd-timesyncd is inferior to what? a fully fledged ntpd? go ahead, use that if you really need to, but on 99% of Linux machines systemd-timesyncd is enough.
I use resolved and timesyncd however and they work amazing for my basic needs on the laptop.
That's BS and you know it.