> Systemd as a Single Point of Failure: Proper maintenance and security practices can mitigate the risks associated with any critical software component.
"Proper" meaning very expensive and very complex that only a limited number of sysadmins can do? Likely involving expensive virtualization and/or redundnacy technologies? Going down a never-ending rabbit hole that pays a lot of consultants or corporations trapping you with vendor lock-in?
> Systemd's Viral Nature: The adoption of systemd by major projects like GNOME can be seen as the natural evolution of the ecosystem around a dominant technology.
This is naive take. It should be seen as what it is: systemd and Gnome are both Red Hat products (no matter what anyone says, Gnome is Red Hat's desktop), and RH leaders mandating that Gnome depend on systemd in order to ram through systemd's adoption in the same way Microsoft did IE.
There's also a small chance it was a typical Lennart Poettering "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it?" act of pure contempt for what anyone else thinks. That guy has got to be the most hated German since Adolf.