It's like saying that the discovery of steel did not replace any existing weapon or tool.

By the way, could the nonsensical offsets be checksums instead?

Nice reverse engineering work and analysis there!

Where do you get these figures from? Is there a sensible % increase?

I've been using Linux desktop for a decade now and I am certain it still used by few, and nothing has changed recently. Or you're telling me 2026 is the year of the Linux desktop?

Are they in the design commitee for RISC-V?

Imagine the lawn mower deciding to stop running because it detects a type of grass that the lawn mower creators didn't like.

In a couple cases the only remaining issue was the lack of a RND() function definition

I disagree. They could have done it to be under the spotlight and progress their career.

Here's another example of cultism repressing any dissent.

Let me make a bullet points list for you:

* I do not hate systemd, I have never stated that, I have been using it for possibly longer time than you and love most of it

* I am entitled to write about what I don't like, you can disagree and move on, we all need to do this exercise on a daily basis

* there are cases where systemd will change the order of dependencies during boot, that's by design because systemd works in a way that tries to achieve states. It's not really enforcing a graph with order

* in a sufficiently complex system, this constitutes a source of non-determinism and it is basically undebuggable: you see the failure, learn about the corresponding configuration, change it and hope that you did the correct change (you have no way to test this until next random occurrence)

That's all, it's based on my experience; I write plenty units on a regular basis and 99% of the times everything goes very well.

"since I have never experienced what you say, it must be fantasy"

> Even op is basically saying: “my issue with systemd is that I dislike the timeout configuration of some services but I stubbornly refuse to change these configurable timeout durations because it would show that the problem was myself and I prefer blaming systemd.”

This is a perfect example of toxicity; I have been successfully using systemd for years and I am entitled to point out what I dislike, I do not have to love everything of it, it's not a religion nor a cult. Your reply tells more about yourself than the topic of the discussion at hand.

> It takes no time whatsoever to get a boot graph with each services name and starting time. That’s an actual feature documented in the manual of systemd which solves OP issue. But of course it would require actually understanding something new and everything new is bad, isn’t it?

You're missing the point, the problem is not changing timeouts but preventing failure and achieving an overall deterministic behaviour out of your system, without ignoring failures. But I refuse further eating these baits, you seem more interested in creating some flames rather than having constructive discussions.