I think what he is alluding to are basically two things: experience with software design (how to avoid overengineering to make maintenance and debugging easier) and experience wrt. dealing with dependent projects. The systemd team's track record on both has been quite abysmal.
As AnonymousPlanet said, scope of systemd and number of bad decisions (or good decisions with horrible implementation) is way too big to discuss here. Linux is no longer secure or reliable system it used to be. Engineering results and outcomes are bad from just about any angle you can take.
If you belong to the silent but great majority (lol) of users that enjoy and cherish systemd -- just carry on by all means.
If anything there is A LOT of aggression any time somebody says anything 'unwelcome' about systemd.
Can you point to an article or blog post pointing out the bad decisions?
> If anything there is A LOT of aggression any time somebody says anything 'unwelcome' about systemd.
The downvotes came when you stated your age, "believe I know what I am talking about" instead of listing arguments and calling the parent poster 'kid'.
Downvotes are really interesting in a sense they provide me with perspective that some people don't even read what is the main point I am making. Systemd discussion is data point, not the main point for me.
Parent poster did clearly state I am making it all up and that I have zero experience with systemd. Cultural differences? English is not my main language but I prefer clearly stating what is what, not really skilled in underhand 'polite' underhand attack. 'Politely' saying you are lying = fine, responding that I may be too ancient or experienced to even be able to explain all the falacies = bad. Gotcha.
Cliche but I am pointing at the moon and people are yelling at the finger. So be it.
