Hi,

Oz Tiram wrote on 22/07/2015 at 10:00 CEST:
> One argument I hear often about systemd is that it more adapted to
> current hardware needs, [e.g. here][1]
>> Computers changed so much that they often doesn’t even look
>> like computers. And their operating systems are very busy :
>> GPS, wireless networks, USB peripherals that come and go, tons of
>> softwares and services running at the same time, going to
>> sleep / waking up in a snap ... Asking the antiquated SysVinit
>> to manage all this is like asking your grandmother to twerk.

Typical "popular appeal" tech article pairing childish language
("twerking") with half-baked trivialities like "computers changed
much" and outright nonsense such as "computers often do not look
like computers".

It's a won't read.

> What I don't understand is how an init system manages hot pluggable
> devices.

My personal opinion is that it should not, according to the directive
"do one thing right."

> What does replacing a hot plugable disk drive it have to do with
> how the system is booted?

The (operating) system could be booted from a "hot-pluggable" device,
i.e. a device that disappears during regular operation.

It then is desirable to have the system available in a fashion that
this device is not required after some "boot(strapping) phase".

One could argue that the "initialization" of the system should play
a part in this.

> Maybe this all done at the none init parts of systemd?

Unclear: The idea behind the systemd/udev merger is "tight coupling"
between "what is available?" (udev) and "what goes where?" (systemd).
Since this deviates from "doing one thing right", I do not like it.

Kind regards,
T.