Structural and semantic deficiencies in the systemd architecture
This is a very detailed article, and I appreciate it and will need to study it carefully.But I think that the major argument it is making is "systemd is a mediocre service manager; similar tools existed before systemd, and were better." That is a very different argument from "we would be better off with sysvinit," which seems to be the primary argument I see in practice: if you're arguing things like "do one thing and do it well," "shell scripts are great and debuggable," "init should reap children and nothing else," "there's too much code in pid1," "I don't want to learn something new,"  etc., you're making that form of argument.If there is general consensus from studied opponents of systemd that something systemd-like is an obviously good idea, great. Let's move on, acknowledge the network effects of systemd, and build something that can feasibly be the shinier, newer, better, securer systemd. Which might even be based on an existing system like s6. But then the path forward has to be either improving systemd or replacing it, not continuing with sysvinit.I am in practice a pro-systemd person, but that's only because my realistic alternatives, for my use case, are sysvinit and Upstart. I have no idea how I'd start to build a system that used something like s6. I would happily admit there is extensive room for improvement in systemd, but we UNIX folks have been working with worse-is-better and rough-consensus-and-running-code for decades.If the general consensus is that a systemd-style service manager is great, but it should not be pid 1, that's an argument worth making, but I don't see much focus in this article on that.If the general consensus is that everything can be done with sysvinit, this article doesn't make that case at all. (But I suspect that's not the general consensus.)