Why I dislike systemd

Nope.

There are many virtual units for which there are no files. One example is the on-demand getty units. There are two for "plymouth" boot-splash stuff (I see these attempted-and-failed units on archlinux where plymouth never exists). There's some autofs thing. There's auditd.

I'm actually not booted into linux right now so I'm struggling to remember the specifics... but if you also count all the simple mounts and devices which clutter up the output of "systemd --all" as "units which are not files in /etc/systemd" then the count is around 100.

Ha. FreeBSD here.

And so long as you get the right hardware, I find BSD to be far simpler than linux distributions out there.

Ports? Beautifully elegant and simple. Configurable. Magnitudes easier than configuring rpm/debs.

Getting a package approved in debian? Alioth? No offense, the wiki, all these pages on the debian website - they have no concept they have of "Handbook", in the sense FreeBSD has. It's so adhoc, they're healthy, but they're in denial about how hard they make it for new people. By the time you've taken to time to learn Debian's dev warts, you're apart of the convent and no longer care about fixing the onboarding problems.

But to be fair. I have day to day gripes with FreeBSD just because we're short on the manpower Linux distributions have in excess:

On FreeBSD 10.1, chromium crashing easily, settings doesn't work. Firefox just clogs up and stops working. No skype (CURRENT will be in a better position to since epoll support has been added). No Dropbox (as of now, we don't have inotify, and kqueue may not be able to handle it, don't quote me on that).

I do my 90% of daily routines simpler and better on FreeBSD. If only Google / Mozilla (with all the resources they have) gave someone who could work to fix this stuff.

Yeah, newcomers to the Linux land without the expertise you guys acquired through 10 years of using Linux, would apparently appreciate how easy it is to manage a server by invoking some lengthy commands they learned through reading the often overly-dense manual instead of `systemctl start/stop x`.

Nowadays some of those so-called "hackers" tend to ignore the part of work that makes the user experience better. They claim that they want simplicity and avoid bloat but most of the times they are just being lazy and not sympathetic to their users.

I'm not saying that things should be dumbed down to clicking GUI buttons on Linux. But if you want your program to become mainstream you need to think about providing good and practical docs and making your program easier to use, even for text-based programs.

Accept that most people would like Bootstrap'ed sites more than yours:

  body
  {
    background-color: #080808;
    color: #ffff70;
    font-family: sans;
  }

Can I use Lennart's inability to buy a properly sized polo as a reason why systemd is bad?

Yeah. The guy has an ugly website. But he has specific points about mistakes that systemd didn't learn from and is repeating. Did he list 'it's too user friendly' as one of those mistakes? In fact, one of his core arguments is that there will actually be an increase in complexity and reduction in user friendliness due to design choices that have been made.

>Nearly every custom init script I've ever seen has bugs, and >isn't portable between systems.

Nearly every custom init script is written by a developer for the product you desperately have to run because development wanted it, not bothering to give us sys admins time to look into the: packaging, configurability, operability and if a custom module/cookbook/playbook needs to be written.

>Where are the unit tests? Code reuse? >Focus on maintainability/readability?

If we were given the time, it would be there. My deadline for almost all work I do is "yesterday".