kfv653: Error in article regarding Ubuntu ,Systemd and Mir
With respect, as a Linux user for almost 20 years, and a developer for over 25 years, I must disagree on almost every point you make.
I read your discussion about Linux very carefully, and I cannot impress this enough: anyone who claims Linux is a desktop OS is "deranged" or living in a dream. Linux was never intended to support "out of the box" commercial software NOR is it intended as a desktop operating system.
In order to do either of those things, Linux would have been designed so companies could compile their Windows and other applications on Linux. It's not possible at the present time without extensive changes. Microsoft made certain of that when they withdrew support from the POSIX standard in 2000. The only exception is .NET code, which Microsoft recently opensourced, and that has been depreciated in favor of Windows Runtime as of Windows 8.
If you want a desktop OS with "shrink-wrap" software, use Windows or MacOS. It is what they are designed for. You will be a lot happier. Linux is designed first and foremost to be a UNIX server operating system.
As for your points regarding systemd:
"People who want to have an older style init can still have it that way be configuring it how they want, SystemD supports the old SysV init as well as its new facilities."
Sorry, but that is only partially true. Systemd is 'mostly' compatible but will break a number of System 5 scripts. Systemd notes this in their own documentation. For example, there are no inherited variables. Systemd is not a "drop in replacement" for System 5.
"The way things were before is that it was impossible to do this."
Not true. There were several service daemons to do these tasks. Systemd just replaces all or most of them under a common framework, which consequentially also makes the software incompatible with everything except Linux. For that reason, I do not consider it to be a good outcome.
"THe people who oppose it claim to be system administrators, they must not be very good system administrators if they find it so difficult to understand the basic model of systemd."
No, actually what they object to is combining all of the server services into a compound system. The Systemd daemon itself is not as much the problem as the fact that its developers seem hell bent on replacing every service daemon with one that depends on systemd to work. This adds attack surface to the operating system, e.g. if systemd is vulnerable, then all of the services that use systemd code are also. It creates a point of failure, because it not only initializes the operating system, but actively manages daemons in session. If the management portion of systemd crashes, the whole system goes down, and needs a hard restart.
"If they claim to be system administrators, why dont they just use the system V failities to run their jobs, if thats what they want?"
Because they do not work properly in many cases, under systemd. See above or read systemd's own wiki.
"I think what they are oppoising really is other administrators being able to actually have some control over initialization because previously with the Linux kernel and init it was hard to hook to certain system events and trace what is going on in the system. It was sort of a black box that administrators had little introspection over."
Actually in my experience, syslogd solved that problem very well. Systemd's binary logs have had a history of corruption problems. The developers' response? Restart the system and erase the logs because they are useless. Doing that means that you won't find out what happened. Sorry, but no. I will use systemd on a personal desktop, but never on a server when keeping a paying customer hangs on whether I can fix a problem.
THis is because systemd DOES NOT take away anyones options it only adds additional options ..."
No, systemd is not the problem. The Linux distributors are the problem. They are the ones forcing their users to adopt systemd, rather than leaving the decision to the end user to decide what they need. THAT is what is making people angry.
The only common versions of Linux that do not force their users to use systemd are Slakware and Gentoo, who have it as an optional install. I would include Debian in that list provisionally, but future versions may not leave the option to not use it open.
"I think they are doing immense damage to the operating system because of this. I seriously question the intent of these people."
I think they have every right to complain when systemd causes real world problems. Just as they have every right to complain when Windows crashes. It does not "damage" anything to say that a problem is a problem. I'd consider it to be far more damaging that the systemd developers ignore criticism as they do. It took Linus Torvalds suspending Key Sievers' merging privileges for causing kernel crashes before Sievers "got the message".