I’m pretty sure their arguments boil down to “big company bad” as systemd is developed by Red Hat. Putting a single entity’s products in charge of several basic functions of the computer (like booting, init, daemons, networking) is seen as a bad idea, especially Red Hat which disgraced itself by making the RHEL source code available only to customers (which does not violate the license), but so far I don’t know of any solid evidence of security holes caused by either incompetence or malice.
Can you elaborate? Are there a lot of security holes in systemd? (Genuine question)
I’m pretty sure their arguments boil down to “big company bad” as systemd is developed by Red Hat. Putting a single entity’s products in charge of several basic functions of the computer (like booting, init, daemons, networking) is seen as a bad idea, especially Red Hat which disgraced itself by making the RHEL source code available only to customers (which does not violate the license), but so far I don’t know of any solid evidence of security holes caused by either incompetence or malice.