Linux

That can be true.. but it depends on the change... emptying your bank account is a change that would make you poorer, and having all those who love you die would be a change that is likely to make you bitter (or at least, sad).

Also, a lot of ancient software introduces change with relatively frequency.. the Linux kernel itself is in constant change, introducing new features, despite it having very strict rules concerning backwards compatibility.

The reason there was disagreement wasn't about whether the new thing is good/bad just because it's "New! Different!".. but about whether it was actually a good change or not.

In the same way, just because nitro is the new init system in town (a change from the current status Quo) does not mean it necessarily is better/worse, right?

Also, I remember that before systemd there was a lot of innovation when it comes to init systems... most distros had their own spin. And more diversity in components that now are part of systemd. I'd argue that ever since systemd became the de-facto standard, innovation in those areas has become niche. One could argue that there's less change now, distros are becoming more homogeneous and more change-adverse in that sense.

Everyone should support rust. It’s a good idea. It prevents an entire class of vulnerabilities. But the old guard says “just stop making mistakes and C is fine” which is an incredibly dumb thing to say but here we are.

Rust is encroaching on their territory and they don’t want to learn the new thing, and newbs don’t see many compelling reasons to learn the old thing, so they are fighting eachother.