@timidpimpin I don't wish to start another discussion here, but I humbly disagree. When something is more complex, it naturally introduces more potential failure points and vulnerabilities (just ask me, or
@looking4awayout, or the folks at OpenBSD). And similarly, when something is more vast, it tends to eat more disk space, processor cycles, and memory (precisely evidenced here). And as far as my experience tells me for most practical usages (having used the tools and utilities of both), systemd does few things for the user that init was not already capable of by itself, never mind the amount of desktop users that ever actually took advantage of either on a consistent basis.
Personally, I think an even bigger part of the debate is because of differing perspective and different user priorities, maybe tying back to what any given individual thinks a computer should be and do. And the way I see it, what systemd set out to
do was not a bad direction, but the
way that it was implemented was an undesirable one over init for reasons previously stated.
That is correct that systemd is indeed just an init system. However, Windows is just an operating system, and most of the world saw it necessary to pivot it as the de-facto standard. - But that doesn't change the fact how that collective choice had problems, to say the least.
Anyway, perhaps what I'm trying to say here is to decide for yourself what a "good" or "bad" change or situation is, irregardless of what others think.
