Talking about "general concensus" is hard because there are a lot of different viewpoints, and depends on how much of the debate one is exposed to.
I have seen people compare systemd unfavourably to daemontools, s6, runit, Solaris' SMF, and Apple's launchd, to mention a few. I've never seen anyone so reactionary that they suggest that SysV is in any way or shape the better alternative. A lot of people are unhappy with SysV, but if they don't like systemd, they would probably consider sticking with SysV to be the lesser of two evils.
> Let's move on, acknowledge the network effects of systemd, and build something that can feasibly be the shinier, newer, better, securer systemd.
Unfortunately, I think that for those who don't like systemd, their criticisms (its design is a monolithic, intrusive, all-consuming, all-or-nothing ball of yarn contrary to Unix philosophy about small, composable programs cooperating over standard protocols) cannot be solved by improving systemd itself, at least not without a huge undertaking to redesign and break it apart, somehow.
I have seen people compare systemd unfavourably to daemontools, s6, runit, Solaris' SMF, and Apple's launchd, to mention a few. I've never seen anyone so reactionary that they suggest that SysV is in any way or shape the better alternative. A lot of people are unhappy with SysV, but if they don't like systemd, they would probably consider sticking with SysV to be the lesser of two evils.
> Let's move on, acknowledge the network effects of systemd, and build something that can feasibly be the shinier, newer, better, securer systemd.
Unfortunately, I think that for those who don't like systemd, their criticisms (its design is a monolithic, intrusive, all-consuming, all-or-nothing ball of yarn contrary to Unix philosophy about small, composable programs cooperating over standard protocols) cannot be solved by improving systemd itself, at least not without a huge undertaking to redesign and break it apart, somehow.