> I've never seen anyone so reactionary that they suggest that SysV is in any way or shape the better alternative.
Unfortunately it's... a position that is not as rare as it ought to be. Some of the frustration and heat undoubtedly comes from the fact that while reasonable people can disagree about the best way to implement many of the goals of systemd, it's hard to take anyone seriously when they propose that SysV init is "more Unix" or technically better.
> ...cannot be solved by improving systemd itself
I suspect the most fundamental impediment is that upstream simply aren't interested in radical changes to how it works - it would be like trying to convince Linus that Linux needs to be a microkernel, or Theo that he needs to start using Rust for OpenBSD.
Any replacement for systemd is probably going to have to do what systemd did (and what daemontools and runit didn't achieve) and create a broad buy-in, with the additional overhead of working with at least some of the systemd dbus interfaces for compatibility.
Unfortunately it's... a position that is not as rare as it ought to be. Some of the frustration and heat undoubtedly comes from the fact that while reasonable people can disagree about the best way to implement many of the goals of systemd, it's hard to take anyone seriously when they propose that SysV init is "more Unix" or technically better.
> ...cannot be solved by improving systemd itself
I suspect the most fundamental impediment is that upstream simply aren't interested in radical changes to how it works - it would be like trying to convince Linus that Linux needs to be a microkernel, or Theo that he needs to start using Rust for OpenBSD.
Any replacement for systemd is probably going to have to do what systemd did (and what daemontools and runit didn't achieve) and create a broad buy-in, with the additional overhead of working with at least some of the systemd dbus interfaces for compatibility.