figosdev
systemd is just one example of a much larger thing.
systemd is free software, but its free software that comes at a cost to all other free software.
the idea of free software is to not let monopolies dominate users. the licensing and design of free software is monopoly-limiting, in the same way that bill of rights (and everything like it before and after the 1700s, in every place that something like it exists) limits the government and the same way that antitrust/corruption law (ideally) limits corporations.
monopolies are bad for individuals. however monopolies do have perks. if they didnt, people wouldnt constantly be tempted to use things provided by monopolies.
systemd is free software, but its free software that is hard to maintain-- its free software that tries to direct all other free software to reorganise itself around systemd.
this is software designed to put red hat in more control, so red hat can sell access to (or trade with) other, still larger monopolies.
most free software is designed to be maintainable without monopolies at all. when systemd comes around, people debate whether organisations as large as debian / spi can "afford" or have enough "resources" (people, code, speed) to work "around" systemd.
most of the trends in software from 1992 to 2018 are about restructuring software so that it is more maintainable by monopolies than by users or by smaller companies and smaller organisations.
the first thing you need to do is make it as large and complex as your large company can stand. red hat has talked about this, and apple and microsoft have done this. "enterprise" is all about this; not that enterprise software is never needed, but enterprise software is friendlier to enterprises.
this doesnt mean that large, successful businesses never use small, simple tools. sometimes they do. sometimes they use boot cds instead of installing suse or rhel.
but if all tools were small and simple, larger businesses would suffer-- who is going to sell the "enterprise" cloud package to people who dont need it, if everyone knows what they really need? the people who need and are willing to pay for the largest packages probably do already.
but we are still restructuring everything around giving people things they dont need-- at increased costs.
free software doesnt do that. enterprise does. right now, all free software is being reorganised so that only red hat will direct its control.
thats not free software, its a coup. monopolies destroy freedom-- if you have a monopoly, you arent free. if you are free, you dont have a monopoly.
but this isnt about just systemd, or just "redix" (the posix replacement) or just the software takeover.
its about how software is designed. is most of the software around right now being designed to suit the original goals of user freedom? or is it being redesigned around one company controlling more and more of how "free" software is developed. so this is about phrasing the problem as a design issue. its also political, but the design matters.
design for autonomy-- for maintaining things without "enterprise," because enterprise isnt everything. it certainly isnt freedom.