(sigh) Wrong. Neither in myth 10 nor anywhere else does Lennart dispute that "UNIX and Linux are evolving tool sets".
> Myth 1.
Systemd makes 69 binaries interact so tightly that it is beyond the political ability of most competent programmers to replace a portion with a better solution. That is monolithic even though Lennart purports to define monolithic otherwise. Systemd is harmless if used on leaf nodes as BusyBox is. If used on a main trunk of Linux, systemd will cause serious harm.
> Myth 16.
Lennart admits that systemd is not portable. As such it is harmful. All Lennart claims in his myth 16 is that there is a reason for his harming Linux.
> Myth 27.
Lennart most definitely exploits systemd as a power play. We have seen this numerous times. A recent instance was "support for some distribution specific legacy configuration file formats has been dropped. We recommend distributions to simply adopt the configuration files everybody else uses now", which translated means that he's using systemd as a power play to try to make the overwhelming majority of distros change configuration files to match those of his tiny minority.
> Myth 19.
Lennart is correct. Lennart's cabal cannot force people with their eyes open to fall into his systemd trap. It is important that balanced information be available for consideration, not just Lennart's manifestos.
Serious suggestion: perhaps you'd do better to author a considered comment appropriate to the situation rather than relying on a monolithic manifesto to do your job badly.