In my experience, systemd is much better documented, way more consistent, and way more reliable than what came before.

It's one of those systemd features that are annoying and in the way when you're trying to accomplish a specific task but deal well with shitware. To be fair to systemd, these features can't usually be implemented without writing new rules for what you have to do to accomplish the legitimate tasks.

> This is why i dislike systemd. Things not working the way I expect means I have to do more work to figure something out.

Even if the change is a genuine improvement?

The fault lies in the distribution for it's default configuration, not systemd.

The article even mentions that distros ship with it turned off

> Things not working the way I expect means I have to do more work to figure something out.

You must love SELinux

"The way you expect" is probably inconsistent and, upon closer inspection, completely broken.

There is a reason why systemd became the default and other niche init systems have faded into obscurity.

Sure, it may be more complex than your pile of shell scripts, but that's because it does the same things better, and has a lot more functionality that you will need at some point, and good luck replicating that by hacking shell scripts.

> Things not working the way I expect means I have to do more work to figure something out.

Sound like you don't like computers to begin with