I hope you're right.

The point of my OP here was not to incite yet another riot, but as something a n00b might encounter after his question about choosing a distro resulted in the strong focus on init systems appearing in so many replies. Some from the Windows realm, and elsewhere, like learning from videos. OTOH, I'm personally in agreement with wpeckham in overwhelmingly preferring the written word.

1 members found this post helpful.

Just a bit comical, so why did you link a video?
For me, the information itself is much more important than the channel through which we received it.

As I said, I'd like to see some evidence. Let's look at a survey of web-servers: https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux Note the most used ones. Of course, it might be that the 40% of Linux servers which wouldn't respond were all running Devuan, but somehow I doubt it. As for Red Hat, the largest user of that is the US government.

For examples to be valid in relation to anything I said one would have to assume that the owners (government or corporate) of the systems and giving the orders could take the advice of the sysadmins. OR even understand what they say! There is significant evidence that this is NOT the case. A good Sysadmin gives good advice, but works with whatever the owner of the system demands as much as that is possible.

We learn and use SystemD, that does not make it the right choice!

More like Windows everyday.

https://www.phoronix.com/news/systemd-255

To each their own I say. Glad I as a home user and bike shop owner have a choice.
And no complaints from me on what anybody runs.

Obviously not. But that does not prove anything. We use a lot of things for no reason, just because we think it's fashionable.

Evidence of sysadmins hating systemd? If you really can't see any, then your eyes and ears must be firmly closed. There is plenty of it around. Read websites like The Register. There are plenty here who don't like it... maybe they're in your 'ignore' list. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

1 members found this post helpful.

No, hating systemd is not an evidence. That is just an emotion. Evidence is if you can explain what is there to hate about it? And as usual, the main reason a person hates something (anything) is because they don't know it and therefore can't use it properly. In general. Hating something is much easier than learning it. This is what I call ignorance.

1 members found this post helpful.

I don't hate systemd, but I am a bit worried.
It's no longer an init system, it more and more controles vital things.
It is maintained by an elite group, like the kernel.
But in contrast to the kernel, systemd has - and creates - many dependencies.
If systemd breaks something then you cannot simply roll back to a stable version.
And, due to its complexity, you cannot do a work-around yourself; it is even hard to understand it enough to make a bug report.

1 members found this post helpful.

yeah, that is the real concern here. I don't use systemd for reasons which will never convince someone who is pro-systemd. I don't particularly care what other people use. What I use works for me, and my hope is that it can continue to do so.

If projects can get committed devs they might survive. Else they atrophy - think Xorg for a current example.

Something has to take their place.

At the risk of turning this into yet another mega-systemd thread

To bad there is/was not a poll on who likes/dis-likes systemd compared to their experience. I personally am avoiding systemd as much as I can. But I wonder:

• I strongly believe most people who like systemd are Miscosoft Admins that also need to admin UN*X systems. To me, systemd is a Microsoft Windows like startup.
• Most people who dislike systemd have been UN*X admins and never had the "pleasure" if being a Microsoft admin. If they did admin Windows, the know how much of a kludge M/S is.
• I can admit there may be a little cross-over between the 2.

I was never a "Microsoft" admin. I was a DOS admin, then an (Altos) Xenix admin, then only an admin of only my own, which was first DOS, then DesqView, then OS/2 Warp, before moving to Linux as primary. I dabbled with Windows3, 98SE, and eventually XP, 7 & 10, but the latter three almost entirely related to HTML and CSS support in web browsers. Thus I have limited understanding of Windows startup.

Variations in the how different distros used it impeded my gaining good understanding of sysvinit before systemd came along, which initially I disliked, but eventually came to appreciate more than I ever did sysvinit. I well appreciate the concept of doing only one thing and doing it well, but also believe inherent init nature too complex for embracing it.

I was a DOS and CPM admin, added PRIMOS, NOVELL, TCP/IP networking with ARCNET, ETHERNET multiple packet protocols), SYSV Unix, and HP-UX at a single job. Continued with more Window, AIX including SP2/SPSS, Linux, OpenVMS, SCO, and a few others with Token Ring DB2 and some Oracle. All of them were interesting, useful, and fun, but only Windows got WORSE to admin over time. All of them improved their administration tools, information, and product except Windows. Microsoft MAY have improved some things, but they hid the details and created tools that worked but also helped to HIDE details that a good admin might NEED TO KNOW! (Don't get me started on the insane tings they did with the "registry"!)

SystemD hides details you need to know, and creates multiple ZONES of potential failure that HIDE EACH OTHER! That looks pretty microsofty to me, and not in a good way.

2 members found this post helpful.