David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> writes:
> I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:
>
> 1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the
> start? Some people say yes, and some of them argue well.
So far, I've seen only arguments that would support that systemd is a
really bad idea because it's broken by design --- or should reasonably
be designed differently.
> 2) Or, is it just that systemd is buried underneath an avalanche of
> horrendous documentation and poorly chosen terminology?
You could look at the source to find an answer. Perhaps it's great ---
but I doubt it.
Seriously? Looking the source? Except developers who will dig in
the source code?