> This is the free market deciding that non-Linux unixes aren't worth anyone's time. If you believe in the free market, you should either stop complaining and get on the winning team, or hole up in BSD-land rewriting Linux software until you have a plurality market share.

If you believe that then why use Linux at all, when windows' market share is so much bigger? And I thought boycotts were supposed to be the free-market way of changing company policy.

> Demanding that open-source developers donate their time to support your particular OS is just leech behavior. Mandating "support equality" is a step in the wrong direction.

Not supporting *BSD themselves is one thing, but systemd explicitly refuses patches to make it more portable.

>And I thought boycotts were supposed to be the free-market way of changing company policy.

Boycotts are what shrill activists on the losing side engage with. The free-market way to change company policy is to start a new company and make new policy. Doing otherwise is just trying to leech off of the success of other, stronger people.

>Not supporting *BSD themselves is one thing, but systemd explicitly refuses patches to make it more portable.

This is exactly what OpenBSD is doing with LibreSSL, so excuse me if I don't listen to the pot calling the kettle black.

The fact of the matter is that Linux won. Systemd won. Alternatives had every chance to make themselves successful, but they lost, and they have nobody to blame for that but themselves.

Is this the religious argument for systemd?

This isn't an argument for systemd at all; it's an argument against supporting any OS with more than one user.

If your OS doesn't matter enough to demand support, it's well within my rights as a developer to ignore you and your users entirely. Cowtowing to a hoard of complaining users is weak behavior.