Systemd is on my list of "meh, who cares, it works". Plus, it's been so long since I messed around with initd that I don't think I'm able to do it without relearning stuff.
I'm not a big fan of systemd messing with dns, but I'll survive. I'm sure I can do some fidgeting and disable it, relying on editing /etc/resol.conf like I used to, but it works well enough now that I can't be arsed.
Best practices change. For example, no one is still recommending manually editing the CHS start of a boot partition on your spinning rust device in order to optimize throughput.
Yes, most of them do, and that is why I complain about it. I want to have the choice. I don't mind if other people use systemd; I just don't want it forced one me.
Yes, and that's the FUNNY part about it! Lennart went against the UNIX philosophy and is hated for it, but so did Linus Torvalds with the monolithic kernel, and Richard Stallman with Emacs.
The "do one thing and do it well" mantra is such bullshit. You can slice up the things stuff does differently however best suits your argument. Oh, wc? I don't use it because it violates the unix philosophy. It can count words and lines. That's two things.
The Unix philosophy never made sense.
All parts of a program should do one thing well and communicate with other modules over a simple, common interface.
But software that offers all the features a user will need under a big umbrella with unified UI and UX is much better than "this program uses different syntax because it came from Unix and not GNU"
Go fuck yourself, Canonical. When I install a package through a package manager, I want the package I requested—not the bullshit you tried to force down my throat.
the other difference between snap and systemd is that there are clearly better alternatives to snap that are technologically superior in practically every sense and not tied to some company that tries to sell out.