It lacks the UNIX philosophy really. Binary logs are a sort of example of the attitude it has. That's why there has been kicking and screaming that you mention.

I have lots of 30-year old books on "Modern XXX" which makes you realise that the label is a bit meaningless. To put it another way, there are 30 year old operating systems with a much more "modern" design than Linux has...and we're not using them. It's not "modernity" per se that obviously tops the list of criteria or we'd be using something like BeOS or even Windows.

> It lacks the UNIX philosophy really.

The UNIX philosophy is not a golden rule or inherently good. Nor is it even really well defined (what is a "thing"?). SystemD does one thing and does it well - managing Linux systems.

> It's not "modernity" per se that obviously tops the list of criteria or we'd be using something like BeOS or even Windows.

Just because modernity isn't the only criteria for success doesn't mean it is irrelevant.

What you define as "one thing" is not seen as one thing by those of us that aren't systemd fans. That's all it is really.

Some people try to run Linux on Apple hardware, don't ask me, some people seem to be "technical masochists" :)

Most people don't like it when you drag them where they don't want to go and like it even less when you ignore that they "scream" about it. If system was universally positive no one would have to be dragged. This patronizing attitude of its developers and proponents is one of the main reasons why I avoid SystemD like the plague.

Oh and "modern" is becoming more and more a pejorative for tech as far as I'm concerned.

Indeed, as mentioned in another comment, all major UNIXes already had something similar in place.