Not only is systemd strictly better, they had really extended themselves to make migrating services as simple as possible rather than assert you have to follow a new status quo entirely. Allowing services to incrementally and optionally adopt features was the key part.

▲

em-bee 9 hours ago | parent [-]

but you can adopt incrementally, thanks to XWayland. sure it's not the same, but unlike systemd vs sysv-init, you can't run two windowing systems side by side with equal privileges unless maybe you have two monitors and graphic cards. one has to be the one that controls the screen. and the other must necessarily run as a client inside it. wayland-on-X may have been possible, but it would have limited waylands capabilities and development.

i am willing to bet that there are systemd haters out there that love wayland and would make the exact reverse claim.

	▲	yjftsjthsd-h 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> but you can adopt incrementally, thanks to XWayland. Wayland's weakest point is a11y and automation tools, which XWayland doesn't work for. > sure it's not the same, but unlike systemd vs sysv-init, you can't run two windowing systems side by side with equal privileges unless maybe you have two monitors and graphic cards. one has to be the one that controls the screen. and the other must necessarily run as a client inside it. wayland-on-X may have been possible, but it would have limited waylands capabilities and development. You can do both, actually; XWayland can run an X server in a window, and many Wayland compositors will run in a window on top of an X11 server. It's not seamless, of course, but it does work.