Linux

From my own experience it was more about being a solution in search of a problem. I see some comments about how the old init system was so horribly broken, and yet the reality was it worked perfectly fine for all but some very niche situations. The only advantage I have ever seen with systemd is that it's very good at multitasking the startup/shutdown processes, but that certainly wasn't the case when it first arrived. For example I had a raspberry pi that booted in 15 seconds, and when I loaded a new image with systemd it took close to two minutes to boot. And there were quite a lot of problems like that, which is why people were so aggravated when distro admins asked the community for their thoughts on switching to systemd and then changed the distros anyway. This also touches on the perception that the "community" accepted it and moved on -- no, systemd was pushed on the community despite numerous problems and critical feedback.

But we're here now, systemd has improved, and we can only hope that some day all the broken bits get fixed. Personally I'm still annoyed that it took me almost a week to get static IPs set up on all the NICs for a new firewall because despite the whole "predictable names" thing they still kept moving around depending on if I did a soft or hard reset. Configuring the cards under udev took less than a minute and worked consistently but someone decided it was time to break that I guess.

There's nothing 'informative' on that article. It's just an opinion piece.

Then maybe you can tell me what "attempting to do more" means, because the author of the article certainly didn't. Or why that's bad. My only take away is that the author thinks the system should facilitate the running of applications and just get out of their way already. But that sounds a lot like building a road network and then failing to install traffic controls because the DOT should just stay out of the way of traffic.