I think part of the reason for this may be that some types of systems lend themselves to exploration and gradual learning through use, while others, being very tightly coupled, generally require a larger upfront investment in learning how they function as a whole, since any one subcomponent is only marginally useful without the rest.<p>This is largely how I remembered studying for Microsoft certification back in the day to be.  There was only so much you could easily learn from playing around with the system.  At some point, well written technical documentation was, if not required, <i>extremely helpful</i> in making connections between how systems worked together, or explaining exactly what a component was or was not capable of.  I don&#x27;t think this is inherently worse or better, just <i>different</i>, and with its own advantages and disadvantages.  For example, people who went through this training seemed to have a very high base-level of understanding of how to configure these systems, what they could or could not do, and how to troubleshoot them, but not necessarily how they <i>functioned</i> in every case.  Conversely, the loosely coupled individual components of traditional UNIX service handlers (sysvinit, inetd) promoted people learning how the actually work, and what they do, but with scattered and not entirely comprehensive documentation on how they worked.  The average person responsible for using these will have vastly different levels of skill and knowledge about them, but with that comes how it actually functions, because that&#x27;s needed to troubleshoot problems, since it&#x27;s so exposed.<p>The feeling I get mostly when reading about systemd is that it&#x27;s very much in the vein of MS products.  Like I said, that isn&#x27;t necessarily a bad thing, but it is very different than a lot of UNIX admins are used to.