> systemd is not init system, its and umbrella project for various core system components, which includes an init system.
The point being made is that it directly depends on the init system part.
> well, in this case there is good reason to have it interact with service manager in general
I disagree! There's no reason to not have it be its own daemon with its own configuration and looser bindings to the rest of the systemd ecosystem (e.g. through dbus and other protocols). KDE applications do this a lot, where they take advantage of other KDE components if present. This is strictly a philosophy thing and not a requirement for achieving what he proposes.
> their "portable and stable" APIs
"we're portable if you reimplement our APIs", idk how this is an argument. They consistently make very little effort to be compatible with (or provide fallbacks for) what's already there. Having stable APIs is nice but there's a reason most of the interfaces on that page don't have alternative implementations: They solve questionable problems and provide no tangible benefits over the methods there were before. Yet projects feel compelled to hard-depend on them...
> The couplings between systemd projects are not that tight, you can pick and choose which parts you want, they explicitly are not "forcing all their projects" to consumers.
In practice they are. The primary reason why everything is shipped as a single project is because that makes it easier to make available in different distros (they just enable everything), allowing it to become the "de facto" standard since it's available everywhere. There's a lot of projects that solve some of the systemd tools' in sometimes better ways, that never see the light of day because they don't have a trojan horse to ride in with.
There's a reason why projects like elogind exist, because there's only a very select few systemd tools that work without systemd at all
The point being made is that it directly depends on the init system part.
> well, in this case there is good reason to have it interact with service manager in general
I disagree! There's no reason to not have it be its own daemon with its own configuration and looser bindings to the rest of the systemd ecosystem (e.g. through dbus and other protocols). KDE applications do this a lot, where they take advantage of other KDE components if present. This is strictly a philosophy thing and not a requirement for achieving what he proposes.
> their "portable and stable" APIs
"we're portable if you reimplement our APIs", idk how this is an argument. They consistently make very little effort to be compatible with (or provide fallbacks for) what's already there. Having stable APIs is nice but there's a reason most of the interfaces on that page don't have alternative implementations: They solve questionable problems and provide no tangible benefits over the methods there were before. Yet projects feel compelled to hard-depend on them...
> The couplings between systemd projects are not that tight, you can pick and choose which parts you want, they explicitly are not "forcing all their projects" to consumers.
In practice they are. The primary reason why everything is shipped as a single project is because that makes it easier to make available in different distros (they just enable everything), allowing it to become the "de facto" standard since it's available everywhere. There's a lot of projects that solve some of the systemd tools' in sometimes better ways, that never see the light of day because they don't have a trojan horse to ride in with.
There's a reason why projects like elogind exist, because there's only a very select few systemd tools that work without systemd at all