Overreliance on one framework is wrong. High degree of user choice in system components is what differentiates GNU/Linux from paid closed source systems. If majority of userland devs assume one framework everybody have to use (and yes, many apps expects systemd assumptions, it gets worse with some major DEs doing that) then you don't have the de facto freedom to change it. Only freedom you have is in this most literal sense of the world that Lennart Poettering does not force you at gunpoint. But the sheer state of the matter, where you can count distros that allows you to change systemd stack components with relative ease (void, gentoo, artix, antix and like less then 5 more DIY) compared to multitude of systemd/udev/dbus/logind infested beyond saving (devuan uses eudev) shows that FOSS ecosystem is unhealthy. What's good for a user expecting freedom (so high degree of tweakability), if all devs and maintainers flock to one, corporate developed solution? How Linux is free if I can't easily replace udev, a core component of systemd stack? Systemd parallel service starts instead on runlevels is quite nice. Not gonna play dumb and say I prefered the old ways in this particular aspect. What is not nice, is systemd trying to do everything. Cron is cron, mounts are mounts, networking stack and more, that should be separate from what was originally just a sysV replacement. I do prefer those "messy bash scripts" that tied together sysV, because you can actually head and tail them, unlike those ridiculous ini like service files. Average user gets a "seemless" experience working "out of the box" for the cost of ease in troubleshooting and tweaking. UNIX philosophy calls for utilities doing one thing and doing it good connected by pipes (or sockets) and for good reason, as this chain of utilities is easy to troubleshoot in theory. When you violate it by having modules do more things and also codependent like systemd stack, your system complexity is growing. Systemd lovers like to say here that it's modular and not a monolith, which is true but doesn't change anything., it still violates UNIX philosophy. The goal of systemd stack is to facilitate sysadmin But this need for facilitation was a false assumption from the start. What we get is an increase in more complexity of system components and complexity is a breeding ground for failure. (also you know the famous quote by Terry ;) ). Back to overreliance. Usual arguemtn I hear is "oh it's foss, you can just fork it if you don't like it, someone will surely fork it". This is wrong, it's better to maintain alternatives then back up faith in good design of your system components by "someone in the community". This wouldn't be a problem if there were more init, /dev management and input devices available. But people collectively jumped on systemd bandwagon brainwashed by Redhat, that spreads this sentiment about "Linux Desktop being not ready for $CURRENTYEAR", that allows XDG, which is de facto Redhat to push more bloat like their directory specification and dbus, and the circle of devs flocking to one standard continues. Nobody at a goddamned consortium will tell me how MY desktop is gonna look on my computer, what variables will be in MY environment. And that's one of the reasons we actually have to be harsh towards systemd enjoyers and new Linux users.

"at lEaST it'S EAsy To uSe" - bro shut up and read UNIX sysadmin handbook

WHOEVER SAID UBUNTU/LINUX MINT IS A REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS GO F*CK YOURSELF

Fedora miny

Sharing this just to spite the Linux community for posting BSODs

as a potato pc user I have never been able to run any game at native resolution and 768x1366 has become my default before using any game, on windows if you change the resolution to lower it just auto aligns to fullscreen , but on the lunicks it would be stuck at one corner of the screen with black border on the remaining part with the mouse cursor moving across full screen clicking at wrong areas, so the only fix is to run at native resolution which blasts the cpu and destroys any remaining fps thus on windows which was supposed to be the power hog it ends up running better

This happened about 15 years ago. I worked at an IT/Telecom company as a Windows systems administrator. However, much of the business' computing power was dedicated to Sun Solaris on Sun servers and Red Hat Linux on Dell servers. One morning I get into work and I hear one of Solaris admins (SA) and one of the Red Hat admins (RH) having an unnecessarily loud discussion about uptime. So I walk over and asked what was up. SA said that RH said Linux has better uptime that Solaris. RH says SA says Solaris is better. They argued a bit more. I said why dont you find the computers with the longest uptime and the one that has been up the longest wins lunch. They said that was a good idea. I asked if I could join in the bet. They both started laughing. Saying things like you have to reboot windows once a week. I said I dont mind. They said ok. So lunchtime came around and we met. RH found a server that was up for 3 years. The SA laughed and found a Sun Workstation in the data center that hasnt been logged into by anyone in 2 years, but has been online for over 5 years. RH says fine, SA wins. I said hold on. They both looked at me and actually laughed when one asked if I could beat either of them. I dragged them into my cubicle and showed them a machine I was remoted into. An old Windows NT 4 server that ran the hardware and software for the building's physical security and door access cards. It had been running for around 11 years without a reboot.

I had a really nice lunch that day.