&gt; Don&#x27;t presume to know things about other people...<p>That would be why I started my initial comment with <i>questions</i>, rather than presuming that I knew your background and knowledge and launching into poorly-formed and ill-founded accusation and&#x2F;or assertion. :)<p>I&#x27;m trying to have a <i>serious</i>, level-headed discussion about a topic that is -inexplicably- sensitive for a few groups of people. In order to do so, I need to discover the pertinent information about the background and knowledge of my conversation partners.<p>&gt; If you actually meant services, then what&#x27;s your point?<p>I <i>did</i>. That would be why I asked about <i>services</i> rather than RC systems. :) I know that <i>many</i> people don&#x27;t work this way, but if you can try to keep in mind [0] that I try <i>hard</i> to say what I mean, and leave nothing but white noise in between the lines of my statements.<p>Anyway, my point is this. You said:<p>&gt; I&#x27;d take systemd over sysv init, atd, crond, three or four watcher daemons, syslog, various other semi-maintained tools that replicate each other&#x27;s functionality...<p>which I took to be a little strange. It <i>seems</i> like this is your understanding of the typical set of services a Linux system runs, but it doesn&#x27;t jive with how either I or my handful of professional sysadmin friends run our systems. We generally don&#x27;t run atd, leave any FS watching up to the software package that actually needs it, avoid using tools that duplicate each other&#x27;s functionality like the plague, and tend to not use unmaintained software... unless it&#x27;s clear that that software is &quot;done&quot;.<p>I&#x27;ve known several friends and acquaintances who have gone off to work for Red Hat. They&#x27;ve -to a man- come back with <i>some</i> really strange, <i>very</i> hard-line positions about how Linux systems are &quot;supposed&quot; to work. <i>One</i> of them <i>vehemently</i> insisted that -because of the complexity of dependency management and testing- a highly-flexible, rolling-release distro like Gentoo Linux was <i>impossible</i>. [1] Because of my personal experience with how Red Hat seems to have enweirdened some of my friends and acquaintances, and because I knew next to nothing about your background, I wanted to ensure that you <i>had</i> indeed stepped out of the Red Hat bubble and <i>seriously</i> looked at what other companies and distros consider a typical set of services and the features provided by and operation of their sysvrc replacements.<p>[0] I won&#x27;t fault you if you can&#x27;t. I have <i>quite</i> a difficult time remembering what I had for breakfast, let alone the rhetorical styles of the couple-dozen one-off Internet conversation partners that I&#x27;ve had over the past several months. :)<p>[1] Note that his position was <i>not</i> &quot;Only a fool would attempt to provide guaranteed enterprise support for any and all arbitrary Gentoo Linux configurations because of $COMPLEXITY.&quot;! I can&#x27;t argue with that position. I asked him if perhaps he misspoke and that maybe <i>this</i> or something similar was closer to his actual position. He vehemently denied that it was, and doubled-down on his original statement.