Yes, systemd sucks, but this is really misinformed and undermines the credibility of devuan. Systemd is a project with lots of parts, PID1 is only a very small part of all the code. We should all understand these basics if we want to be taken seriously!

1) Systemd is an umbrella project, that contains a lot of different pieces. Most of it is unrelated to PID1.

2) This needs a lot of tin-foil, but at least it is factually correct from all I can tell.

3) Some parts running in a severely restricted environment had bugs. These are unrelated to PID1.

4) That happened, but things got fixed anyway.

5) PID1 does not do DNS, that is a separate process, Being able to change any file in a container is inherent in all container management tools, never heard of remote PID1 (do you have a reference here?)

6) A part of systemd will use Google DNS servers if nothing else is configured by the distribution nor the administrator. So if this ever happens, it is far from systemd only that fucked up.

7) But systemd restarts services that break! It surely is great for servers!

8) is mostly a matter of preference.

Developers like systemd a lot, that is why it gets used everywhere, leading to the entanglement that devuan sets out to unmake.

In the counters to systemd section:

* "Security": I ran into a lot of people that claim that their systems get more secure with systemd since it makes it so simple to restrict what daemons can do. It would be great if Devuan could tune its init scripts to run all daemons with the same restrictions as they run on Devuan to show that this can be done with any init system.

* "Portability": The systemd crowd will argue "Why is that important?" Do you have any argument for that? Is there any init system that is used widely between different OSes?

* "Development Capabilities": Why does so much software depend on systemd if developers are hindered to do what they want? Any good argument for to counter that?

* "Flexibility": Why is that? All inits just start stuff up, why would one way to start stuff be less flexible than another?

* "Visual Appearance": I do not understand what this point is about at all. You can surely run X11 and wayland and text based terminals in systemd, too?

* "OS footprint size": The counter to your argument I get to that is "but systemd does so much more" and "sysv-init needs a shell, core tools and a lot of other cruft that is built into systemd, so systemd is actually lighter on resources". How to counter that?

* "Stability": I have not seen anybody debate that systemd is more stable than sysv-init yet. Did you run into that claim yet?