"Sorry, but Linux and Windows are two different operating systems and systemd
isn't about free choice and freedom of administration of the system. It's
about controlled automation and a lack of core principles of system
security."
The systemd developers are chanting in their basements, candles raised and
human blood in wine glasses, "Down with freedom! Admins should drown!
Security is for suckers!"
Is this a conspiracy or something?
Yea, it's pretty easy to say that they are going against "principles of
system security," whatever your definition of that is, but it's harder to
bring evidence showing that they are doing something bad for security.
systemd can be administrated just as well as upstart can, it's just done
differently. "There's a learning curve, run away!"
It seems to me that the only valid criticism of systemd is that it only works
with GNU/Linux. This hasn't been shown to harm BSD or other Unix-like
systems, however. It seems that the BSD crowd isn't really interested in
having systemd, anyway. If the lack of a BSD/Unix version isn't doing any
bad, then it seems that the lack of portability isn't as big a bad thing as
people are making it out to be.
I mean, GNOME 3.16 is working on OpenBSD even with it's systemd dependency,
for example.
