I'm quite annoyed by the bland statement in the introduction of this article:
people make about it don’t stand up to much scrutiny, even the technical ones
Basically the author says that everyone else has stupid rants that doesn't stand but himself has valid claims so that in the end we have a proof that there are a few valid technical rants!
That being said, the main problem with systemd from the beginning is that it is a cancer. It was explicitly designed to prevent as much as possible the modularity and intercompatibility. Kind of opposite to the POSIX way even I think.
Despite what is pretended, doing the things would probably not have impacted features, like boot speed but it was key for them to shove through our throat the usage of systemd in a "all or nothing" way.
Basically the author says that everyone else has stupid rants that doesn't stand but himself has valid claims so that in the end we have a proof that there are a few valid technical rants!
That being said, the main problem with systemd from the beginning is that it is a cancer. It was explicitly designed to prevent as much as possible the modularity and intercompatibility. Kind of opposite to the POSIX way even I think.
Despite what is pretended, doing the things would probably not have impacted features, like boot speed but it was key for them to shove through our throat the usage of systemd in a "all or nothing" way.
And udev or logind are good example of that.