At no point have I leveled a critique of feature parity or the idea of selling support.

I am explaining in exhaustive (to me) detail how the phenomenal commercial backing that systemd had and still has makes it a ridiculous suggestion that someone could simply maintain sysv the same as people have maintained and developed systemd.

If I love sysv so much I can’t maintain it the same as systemd because I’m not a team of experts being paid to work on it full time!

The contribution of systemd back into the open source community can’t even be without ill outcome because it has replaced simple and easy to understand sysv in the very distribution whose goal is teaching!

As someone whose comprehension of how a computer goes from a complex collection of inert electronic components to a running, functional system comes from building lfs back in the day: that’s bad! No longer can we simply look at the tiny set of programs and simple scripts that take our computer online and gain understanding from that investigation, now we must trust the documentation and operation of an incredibly far reaching and powerful black box called systemd!

We were allowed to freely live within the castle walls and are anbout to lose the understanding of how to build thatched roof huts and split rail fences because of it.

If you want to see this process play out again, leaving you in the unenviable position of old man trying desperately to explain history to people who just charitably accept the present as a given, take note of wayland development, gnome decisions like tilting at middle click and see who is spearheading those changes and whomst they are paid by.

In ten years you’ll be using windows without a functional micro kernel wondering what happened.