>Many are still unaware of the true nature of systemd and believe it is
merely a replacement init system. This is direct from the "horse's
mouth":
I believe many who support or at least are not anti-systemd do know it is more than an init system. They, like myself, are yet to see anything that convinces them that it is the bad thing many who have become emotional about this issue believe it is.
>And yet you find it's okay to sling back and yet not provide any source or proof, just as Michael does in his reply. Hypocrites.
Lisi did not sling back and neither did I. We both commented on your use of emotion, which you continue with by name calling. This is not a school yard, it is supposed to be a technical discussion, and this is the general reason I ignore discussions like this.
As for proof I answered you with a question, a question you have ignored and chosen not to answer. You believe there is nothing of systemd in the kernel, Lisi supports you, I don't and I support my claim with the fact that Linus banned KS from uploading anything to the kernel because of the systemd bug (which highlighted a bug in the kernel). If systemd is totally divorced from the kernel Linus, and other kernel developers, had absolutely no right whatsoever to demand KS fix what they consider to be a bug in something that is not under their control or in their kernel. They could have, and probably should have, let the bug remain and this would have forced all distros to revert back to an older init system. There is no justification at all for the heated argument in April over systemd calling the kernel log if systemd is totally divorced from the kernel.