[PetitSasquatch]

Don't we already have multiple, alternate systems that are significantly simpler?

The primary reason why I don't use systemd at all, on any desktop or server I manage, is not that I think it isn't powerful or reliable but, I cannot fit it into my head.

The scope and complexity of it goes beyond what I'm personally willing to invest into any one subsystem designed to regulate my operating system.

I find that because I can't easily integrate day to day systemd operations into my general knowledge of the Unix / Linux shell environment, it essentially creates a cognitive switching cost that I'm not willing to pay given the efficiency and utility I get from my existing knowledge and skills.

Systemd seems to work well for a lot of people, but doesn't sell itself to me given my objective, and capacity, to internalize simpler tools for high levels of mastery.

That's why I don't use systemd but do use other, more simpler systems, that are readily available.

[rainbow29822]

You don't have to fit anything in your head. I often find myself consulting the index at `man systemd.directives` to remember things: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.dir...

In lot of cases I've found systemd units much to actually be simpler and easier to maintain due to everything being in a simple declarative format. The old alternative is to have a lot of shell scripts that can get very complex, and to consult another few hundred man pages for various shell utilities...

[PetitSasquatch]

True. However, my objective is to internalise the tooling that routinely use, the scope of systemd is beyond what I need. Also, I find constantly looking up unique directives fatiguing and would rather use that energy elsewhere. I find working with the same general tooling results in faster & easier mental recall across a broader range problems that I tackle. Just my experience, no doubt different for others.