Can someone explain why system D is bad?

It's not needed, it's not simpler than any other init system. It swallows other parts of the system. Linux used to have replaceable parts. The idea behind it was declarative init scripts.

Sounds ok, but it's not only an init system. That's the problem. It became so bad that most of the distros adopted it only because it's a pain to get rid of it. It is like cancer that growed and contaminated many parts of the system.

If it worked flawless there would be no problem but it doesn't. In the past it was buggy as fuck. Today it's just OK. There are simpler alternatives that are faster and easier to work with without all the unnecessary parts. For me the worst thing is that it made portability harder because systemd is linux only. It is an artificial dependency, because init is and should be only a program that manages startup of system services. Because of it is is harder to write programs that work both on Linux and BSD.

If it was only an declarative init system it would be ok. But it is not an init system. The problem with monolithic approach is that it is harder to innovate and replace other system parts with something that is truly better.

If you work with software professionally you probably know that the longer something exist the more hairy it becomes. The bigger the project the harder and more costly it is to develop and replace. You need to be backward compatible and make new features at the same time. It makes your system more bloated with time. Then after many years it's so horrible you need a huge rewrite - this is the pain point because the monolith is very hard to replace. If you choose to refactor it instead it will still be the same thing, just easier to work with but it won't become less bloated.

Times change and if you want to grow and innovate it's silly to skip to monolithic design. Linux will become like Windows. It will have some ugly parts that are a burden that can't be ridded of. There will be feature creep.

Linux users have this weird mental hangup where they think everything is perfect in the first software version they install and that everything goes to shit as soon as it updates or a replacement comes along.

What do you think about OP's image?

idc

It isn't but since it is newish it had to run the gamut of oops a cve when there were lesser tools that didn't have that problem.

It does everything differently than I'm used to and there are only some backwards compatibility scripts maintained by third parties. Like now you can't edit /etc/resolv.conf directly you have to do something through systemd. Used to running nscd? Fuck off we use systemd-resolved now. Logrotate? Useless now you have to invoke the proper journalctl commands. Cron is even being replaced.

Lol fucking idiot

Stop being such a moralfaggot, it's just a fucking image with text

Those digits say hot damn you got it right.

Yeah so explain why it's funny. And OP should explain why he chose it

P-put it out on me, user >~

It's not funny and it's really stupid, moreover it's pretty disturbing.

>Poettering is a gigantic prick, but I don't think this is an actual concern. Redhat are not Microsoft, they're not out to EEE every Linux distro.
lel
>refuses to check the digits
>claims that systemp is not EEE despite it being a textbook case of EEE
wewlad

>If you work with software professionally you probably know that the longer something exist the more hairy it becomes.
you mean, like initscripts? I have a RHEL6 (yes, really) server that I have to manage. Initscripts are flaky at best, and unreliable or even completely broken at worst. Turns out, running ps and checking if the output contains your process ID that was stored in /var/run is not entirely reliable. It feels like duct tape and chewing gum, except it's holding the whole OS together. systemd isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we used to use.

nobody cares

Red Hat's upstream-first policy is incompatible with EEE.
you can't do Extend nor Extinguish when it's upstream.