Meh. In the literary genre of systemd criticism there are better examples, mostly from people fond of the microkernel design aesthetic.<p>&quot;Systemd will start them both at the same time, but buffer any messages A tries to send to B until B is ready.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s not systemd which is buffering messages, it&#x27;s the kernel&#x27;s IP or UNIX domain sockets. (Also, this means that daemons don&#x27;t need to run setuid root just to bind a low socket.)<p>&quot;With systemd, the order is not deterministic, so you don’t know what’s going to happen next time you boot.&quot;<p>All you need to do is define the dependency graph properly, then any possible ordering will be fine. You might as well argue that &quot;make -jN&quot; is somehow harmful.<p>&quot;A server spends several minutes in the BIOS during POST anyway, before the bootloader is even run; making the OS boot faster doesn’t change very much&quot;<p>Never used virtualization or containers?<p>&quot;That doesn’t feel modular to me.&quot;
&quot;Cleaning up or re-implementing ntpd is a good thing, but OpenBSD didn’t feel the need to make it part of init.&quot;<p>The systemd project is not (any more) an init system, it&#x27;s a collection of tools to create a Linux-based OS from. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.openntpd.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.openntpd.org&#x2F;</a> says that OpenBSD includes OpenNTPD as part of its base system.<p>&quot;OpenNTPD was primarily developed by Henning Brauer as part of the OpenBSD Project and gets released as a base component of OpenBSD every six months.&quot;<p>Clearly this is the same as what systemd does? Do we conclude from this that OpenBSD feels &quot;not modular&quot;, since it has an NTP implementation in the same repository as its init, or is it only bad if systemd does it?<p>&quot;Regular journal corruption that Lennart says is not a problem. It seems obvious that a non-transactional binary log is a terrible idea.&quot;<p>As opposed to plain text files, which magically survive having random blocks overwritten by hypothetical filesystem bugs or hardware issues without losing a single line of log content?<p>&quot;Numerous reports of systemd hanging on boot because of something in fstab that violated POLA.&quot;<p>Does this refer to systemd implementing the &quot;nofail&quot; keyword exactly as it was documented? The author will be very surprised when he discovers that FreeBSD does <i>exactly</i> the same thing, except that the keyword is called &quot;failok&quot;.<p>&quot;To my knowledge, no one has ever lost data as a result of a bug in ZFS.&quot;<p>Does the author have access to Sun&#x2F;Oracle&#x27;s internal bug tracker where such customer bugs would be reported, in particular during the early years of ZFS&#x27;s existence?