I’d argue that the systemd trend actually is the one that’s change-adverse.
I remember that before systemd there was a lot of innovation when it comes to init systems… the flexibility of the script-based inits made it so most distros had their own spin. And there was more diversity in components that now are part of systemd. I’d argue that ever since systemd became the de-facto standard, innovation in those areas has become niche. Distros are becoming more homogeneous and less open to changes in that sense. Some components are becoming more and more interdependent and it’s becoming harder to ship, for example, Gnome, without systemd.
@Ferk before systemd was initng, which introduced many breaking changes too. But with initng system startup time turned from 30 seconds to 5, even on HDD. I did not notice such change when switching from upstart/sysvinit to systemd
I’d argue that the systemd trend actually is the one that’s change-adverse.
I remember that before systemd there was a lot of innovation when it comes to init systems… the flexibility of the script-based inits made it so most distros had their own spin. And there was more diversity in components that now are part of systemd. I’d argue that ever since systemd became the de-facto standard, innovation in those areas has become niche. Distros are becoming more homogeneous and less open to changes in that sense. Some components are becoming more and more interdependent and it’s becoming harder to ship, for example, Gnome, without systemd.
@Ferk before systemd was initng, which introduced many breaking changes too. But with initng system startup time turned from 30 seconds to 5, even on HDD. I did not notice such change when switching from upstart/sysvinit to systemd