Your opinion is that systemd is objectively better being more than an init system?
I prefer my software to work as single units which can communicate using standard, agnostic technologies to one another, not be a gigantic binary blob which is too hard for even some of the most brilliant people in the community to understand
All I'm saying is that it shouldn't have gone beyond being an init system. Is it so hard to understand that one might want one application to do one thing and do it well?
I didn't know much about Linux when Systemd was adopted by Debian. And how would I make myself loud enough for people to notice? I still don't have the technical knowledge to completely grasp the operating reasons why people chose it, all I know is that systemd was meant to be an init system, and now it is no longer just an init system. It's in things it shouldn't be in. I'm sure people worked hard on it but one program edging out general alternatives shouldn't have been the way of development
I know lol. It was a joke, although I do think that in theory leaner systems like Runit are better. But I cannot dismiss some of the innovation/work done in systemd
I'm starting to see this a lot. Some man-pages are very verbose and one might not have the time, but for the most part, opening a man page and lessing through it doesn't take too long, and it's usually up-to-date
Just what services do you use that are of interest to three letter agencies? They really aren't interested in tracking down furry-porn browsing habits through TOR and I2P