@Mek101
well, my arch linux back then booted just fine before they switched to systemd. after the switch i had problems. it's what you get for bleeding edge things like arch, but i never had other problems with arch until then.

the only thing systemd proponents were half right with was "speed" because parallel startup of daemons. that is bullshit for everything except desktop usage, but even back then suspend and hibernate were a thing. which effectively removes the "oh god i have to wait 10 seconds longer because serial daemon startup".

and the init process is the thing which works at least haft of the time. systemd-resolved is _so_ bad it isn't even funny anymore. i also don't want something to "manage" my homedir. it's all hyper-complex bullshit, held together with dbus, on an operating system that has it's roots in "text is the interface, do things as simple as possible".

systemd is a combination of root shell bugs, bad design and hybris.

regarding the "service" (look ma, just like in windows!) files: it's not the job of software to deliver them, at least if you still believe in the idea that linux is a bazaar and distributions are inherently different. which thanks to systemd et al most aren't anymore. it's just "i have choice" larp to use either suse, ubuntu, debian, fedora, ..., they are all the same bloated mess. each of their home rolled configuration methods (yast, the debian config stuff, ...) were better than the stuff now.

it's not that linux didn't have problems, it's that those problems were completely different from what systemd tried to solve. those were specifically invented for systemd and the rest of the bullshit stack.

@ceruds @FrailLeaf