Sorry missed the Systemd-Free part, ignore comment.. but if your going to use a Systemd distro then CB++ is a good choice. Peace!

Linux, due in a large part to its using the ‘Unix philosophies’, was an alternative OS that offered speed, reliability & robustness. However, I have sen an increasing trend, over the past couple of decades, to ‘MS Windows-ise’ it.
Perhaps this is due to new generations of developers coming through who have never been taught the virtues of the Unix design philosophies? Perhaps it is a perversion of trying to get Linux onto more desktops, seen as ‘compete with MS Windows’, corrupted into ‘become more like MS windows’? Whatever, in my opinion THIS MUST STOP as it must ultimately kill Linux.

The big deal about ‘sytemd’ is that is a very large step in this direction, and a huge step away from being Linux. Linux can never be MS Windows. But without the support of the big software companies the closer it gets then the less appeal it will have as an alternative. Let Linux stick to its own Unique Selling Points – stability, speed and flexibility.

Another great engineering philosophy is “if it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it”. And certainly not replace it with something that is actually broken. There was nothing wrong with SysVinit, it is well proven to be very robust & flexible. Systemd strikes me as change for the sake of change. Not only pointless, but a big step backwards. I have heard people say that it is an improvement! But the improvements they state all turn out to be specious. What I do see is degradations. Where is the reliability, speed & ability to finesse that SysVinit has?

If I must be forced into using systemd in order to use Linux, then it’s time to move onto BSD.

As a developer of 30yrs experience, both MS-Windows & Linux, I have learnt to LOVE the Unix ‘Do just one job & do it well’ philosophy. It means small & simple code that is as bugproof as you can get. It means that potential bugs can easily be spotted & fixed during initial development. It means the code is easy to thoroughly test under all conditions. It means that when a bug does get into the wild it is much quicker to isolate and trackdown & solve. It means amendments can be made with far less worrying about ‘What might this break?’.

One of my jobs involved writing a system for a TV station in Hong Kong from a desk in England. When the customer wanted a change this philosophy meant that the change was implemented and running on site within hours, not days or even weeks.

So, this philosophy is not just ‘politics’, it’s a discipline that turns out solid bug-free code. Because Microsoft does not adhere to it and they dominate the market so greatly the general public has come to believe that code must inevitably have bugs.

So maybe it is ‘politics’? If so, then it is the politics of allowing business to use consumer ignorance to allow them to get away with providing shoddy goods.