systemd

I'm not even anti-systemd, but I can certainly use you as ammunition against systemd proponents if the time ever comes.

Actually, Haiku's init is more inspired by launchd than anything, which predates systemd by some 5 years.

In fact, systemd is revolutionary in it's own right and that's why it is hated so much.

So its the systemd developers' fault that this is not a very good list of issues?

People working on systemd have submitted hundreds of kernel patches and implemented features that already are in the mainline kernel.

I would have said Debian up to the whole Jessie debacle with systemd and abandoning core precepts.

No, you just can't recognize that systemd is objectively and clearly superior to every other Linux init system by just about every measure.

Heck, he has more than once chewed out one of the principal systemd devs (Kay Sievers) for violating central rules of kernel development.

This was used as leverage against Debian, and became a key reason for several of the votes for systemd in the infamous technical-committee vote.

And will Resolved even function without Systemd sitting as the init?

I don't think Red Hat was the driving force behind systemd's container and VM integration.

Because Windows sucks, since it doesn't have anything like systemd.

Why should anybody trust your other comments about the history of systemd when you don't know that "cabal" is Lennart Poettering's term for the systemd core developers?

It said, "Systemd made kdbus non-optional in its release." That implies that use of it is non-optional, which isn't the case at all.

Systemd is Red Hat's "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy.

This is a recent development -- and why I put the caveat "for now." systemd-nspawn is probably going to be marked production-ready quite soon, especially because it's the foundation for the CoreOS Rocket container tool.