After many years of systemd, I truly believe it has made Linux significantly worse.
Thought it managed to standardise the linux ecosystem on one behaviour: nothing works by default
1.5k bugs, with a dozen showstopper blockers at any time
Except that in reality, everything works, all the time, and most of the reason that it does is due to all the hard work and good design put into systemd.
> 1.5k bugs, with a dozen showstopper blockers at any time
If you look at successful open source projects, you will see that all of them have thousands of bug reports open, and most of them will never be even touched by a developer. You simply can not imply anything about the quality of an open source software project by that metric, only that it's a successful.
I've been using Linux since 1996, and compared to the mess that was before systemd, I'm very happy about it. My remaining hopes are that wayland would finally kick xorg to the ditch where it should've been 10 years ago and that pipewire (or whatever) sorts out the audio problems (like they should've been sorted out 20 years ago).
I worked with laptop makers, and systemd manages to brick the system in ways not even imaginable on regular init. No HDA codec, and pulseaudio hangs DBUS? Brick. Systemd's agetty analog not seeing serial port? Brick...
> xorg to the ditch where it should've been 10 years ago and that pipewire (or whatever) sorts out the audio problems (like they should've been sorted out 20 years ago).
I would argue that Pipewire can make a decent display server, way better than what Wayland currently offers for just the way it manages IPC.
> If you look at successful open source projects, you will see that all of them have thousands of bug reports open, and most of them will never be even touched by a developer. You simply can not imply anything about the quality of an open source software project by that metric, only that it's a successful.
Proper open source projects fix their bugs bugs. GNOME had millions of users at the peak, and it's core projects seen under 100 bugs. And that's for a major C codebase. SystemD on other hand, manages to go through several major releases with unfixed memleaks. I can only have unflattering words about its quality, and project maintenance practices. I have simply no other words: It's garbage, utter garbage.
Init before systemd didn't do dependencies in most distros (or at least not in a serious way), so this goes both ways. Systemd can get stuck waiting for something, but initd broke by YOLOing the startup and hopeing things work. There are good points for either approach.
The issue count though really doesn't mean much. What's the boundary of core even? gnome-shell has 1.1k open issues right now while systemd pid1 has 404 of them. Where does the 100 come from? Then the tagging, auto-closing, project management style, etc. come into play. It's a silly metric.
Although, during that era, the same issues were hella common on Ubuntu systems etc as well.
I for one is not looking back at the sysv script spaghetti with fondness...