I just find it too difficult to use. Id rather learn five well connected simple tools than one massive tool that accomplishes the same thing anyways.

Pros: Really useful AIO program that does everything Cons: Really useful AIO program that does everything

Great example:

Systemd makes it very easy to bring up DNS with systemd-resolved, and it bridges a gap from the old resolv.conf file and newer DNS standards n stuff.

But then it also means that any alternative DNS clients have to tell resolvd to go away if they want to run, or often times make a systemd service to autostart with systemd and ensure it works perfectly with every possible systemd setup.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this method of having a centralized AIO thing that handles a a lot of stuff for you, but lots of early Linux people preferred the hardcore KISS principle and found it very beneficial to have everything neatly separated and modular with the service manager’s job to only start and stop services.

Overall, systemd has been remarkably (and relatively) stable and beneficial which people thought would be impossible back when it became initially popular.

As far as i have heard it is because it doesn’t adhere to unix philosophy and trie to be more than an init system.

I don’t really care as long as it doesn’t try to spy and/or force features/settings onto me

Linux power-users hate it when a tool tries to become a platform.

It breaks the principle of single responsibility and becomes a threat to the evolution of alternatives.

It’s pros and cons. Having a platform is better because everyone works together on a single effort. But it also becomes a risk because now everyone depends on a single thing that does too much.

For a desktop it’s suitable for 99% of what you’d want to do. Might not be the best tool for large servers or something (I really don’t know) but I’m sure all that depends on use case.