Windows goes out of the way to fix the massive integration failures we've had for decades (and seen as almost unfixable) because Linux is so focused on modularity to a fault. And yet, Linux users don't clamor for Windows because of this.
> http://islinuxaboutchoice.com/
This is exactly the attitude the author is arguing against. Reaffirming this without justification doesn't make you right. Again, Windows is the operating system for people who don't want choice.
> Feel free to make something better than systemd, document it as extensively as systemd, spend years writing guides to its most compelling features that get people eager to switch, and do as much work as the systemd developers did to help the entire Linux ecosystem adopt it with shockingly few technical problems. There's nothing stopping you; you can even leverage the entire systemd codebase in the process. Fork it and change what you don't like, if you think you can keep up. Good luck; you'll need it.
Honestly, sysvinit and the existing userspace does all I need it to do. The extra benefits systemd offers I can do using existing tools. Need to reliably kill a service? Use the cgroups tools and put the service into its own cgroup, and then kill all processes in the cgroup later. Need tamper-evident logging? Use the rsyslog tools. Need dependency-based boot? insserv has got you covered. Need automatic device-node creation, and the ability to run programs based on device events? udev did this just fine before systemd.
> Refuted so many times that anyone still saying this is either intentionally misleading or utterly uninformed about what they're railing against.
Systemd's components are tightly-coupled. How, pray tell, do I run logind without systemd as PID 1? How, pray tell, do I remove journald? Oh, that's right. I can't. By design. That makes it monolithic.
> It couldn't possibly be that the software is sufficiently compelling that those without religious objections to it are switching to it to take advantage of its useful features.
Or, it could be that people now have to choose between having a desktop environment and NOT having systemd. The tight coupling of systemd to layers above it compels its adoption, arguably more so than its merits.
By contrast, X.org and Xfree86 (an example from the article) were largely interchangeable.
> Keep up or get out of the way, don't shout "wait up" or "no fair".
Have fun running over the cliff to your new Windows-ix :)