> In general, I'd agree with you, but there are some situations where it's
> possible to argue for hotplugger/service manager integration:
> if you hotplug a scanner or printer, there's reason to think that the
> corresponding daemon (sane/cups/lprng/lpr) should start.
> Note that I did not say that I think it's a good argument.

>
> The obvious defect in this approach is that there *are* network scanners and
> printers, which cannot be hotplugged. A less obvious obnoxious detail is the
> sudden demand on system resources, and the delay before the service is
> available.

> Overall reaction to the argument:
> Expecting init to manage all that is stupid; init should only be concerned with
> system processes.
>
> Thanks,
> Isaac
>
[T.J. Duchene]

Please understand that I hold your opinion in the highest respect. In fact, I agree with you in substance, Isaac.

That said, the reality of the situation is quite different than it is in theory. As the old saying goes in the American Midwest: "The proof is in the pudding." Until someone provides a systemd alternative that works better than systemd, yet provides conveniences and the same API, no one who has latched on to systemd is going to change their mind.

In my humble opinion, the best way to kill systemd is to dilute it by cloning the API.


Have a great day!
T.J.