>>12762
>Single dev/no apprentice
Reminder that's what caused the related PC-BSD/TrueOS & Trident projects to implode, plus nearly killing Lumina.
>>12767
>alternative init systems
Literally what? Everything that's gotten any real mindshare among the anti-SystemD crowd are anachronistic shit like runit, OpenRC & Upstart that slavishly reimplement the same soup of shell scripts & config text files as rc/SysV, but bolted on top of a dep resolver. The handful of cleaner and more ambitious efforts like SMC, Shepherd, & Initng were completely ignored.
>>12765
>"Bloat" is unnecessary shit. If you need to use a specific thing and that thing depends on something else, and you can't find any way around it then it's not unnecessary it is not bloat.
Anon makes an excellent point, and something adjacent to IMHO the only legitimate complaint against SystemD.
SystemD isn't bad because it's new, or popular, or different from the juryrigged crap that came before it, those are in fact the reasons it is good. SystemD is bad because it sucks up features from every part of the OS it can, and (even if there are today forks capable of prying them apart from each other such as eudev, Poetering has been caught publicly admitting to an explicit ambition of ultimately rendering them impossible) welding them together into a single inescapable dep tarpit for no technically justifiable reason. Similarly, D-Bus is not bad because it is a standardized high-level API for IPC, which is in fact a good thing. D-Bus is bad because it is tied to both nu-Gnome & SystemD, both of which are projects that seek to turn everything they make into a dep of everything that uses their products. If you separate D-Bus from the rest of its deps, as some forks do, it is not bloat.
>>12773
>The same thing plays out with X vs wayland
Yes, because aside from Wayland no serious effort had been made among freetard OSs to replace X.
>wayland is so broken that even normalfags didn't lap it up yet
Reminder X was an absolute raging dumpsterfire for its first 2 decades, in spite of which it beat vastly superior alternatives such as NeWS. X eventually crawled its way almost to mediocrity by the time it was cleaned up from XFree86 to X.Org, which soon thereafter ground to a halt under the weight of its accumulated cruft. In more direct comparison to Wayland, Apple (Quartz) & M$ (DWM) both wrote equivalents of what Wayland wants to be in under 5 years, pretty much from scratch, a decade earlier.
>>12775
>the argument is a text editor shouldn't require a complete lisp language
>>12776
>at this level you want an editor that's extensible, and the simplest way to do this is to have some kind of scripting ability
OG lispfags made an even stronger version of this argument, c.f. Greenspun's Tenth Rule, the assumption of a C lib in most platforms is itself the actual bloat. Note: I do not personally endorse mandatory GC langs as core deps, though I might find similar arguments palatable for e.g. a FORTH REPL on a HW stack machine as the ideal platform design.