1. Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new "features".

2. Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, as yet unknown, program. Don't clutter output with extraneous information. Avoid stringently columnar or binary input formats. Don't insist on interactive input.

systemd has binary format data all over the place, and it is quite difficult to separate out an individual component and have it work properly on its own. Not to mention trying to replace a subcomponent with something else.

systemd is, in general, a tightly coupled system with lots of interdependencies. It is, in many respects, the antithesis of the UNIX design philosophy.

Hell, even modern Software Engineering practices still talk about decreasing coupling and increasing cohesion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

Also, how do you define doing "one thing" exactly? I can see it for `ls` or `cat`, but for anything more complicated than that...not so sure. Is Vi following the UNIX philosophy? If you say; yes, it's 'just an editor', despite 'an editor' being composed of several components, then I can say that systemd is just 'a service manager'. It's a semantics game that does not make sense in today's world.

The Unix philosophy has its uses for sure, but it's far from an universal truth in today's world.

Sure. The UNIX Philosophy applies more to userland, I think, than the kernel.

Edit: I'll add with regard to the kernel, the internal structure of the kernel still has fairly well-defined subsystems that interact in clear, mostly consistent ways. So while from an execution standpoint it is monolithic, the philosophy is still something that is taken to heart to some extent.

> Also, how do you define doing "one thing" exactly? I can see it for `ls` or `cat`, but for anything more complicated than that...not so sure. Is Vi following the UNIX philosophy? If you say; yes, it's 'just an editor', despite 'an editor' being composed of several components, then I can say that systemd is just 'a service manager'. It's a semantics game that does not make sense in today's world.

I think dismissing it as a semantics game is taking it pretty far. It's clearly not a black and white rule, but more a guiding philosophy. When it works, it's beautiful and elegant.

The ability to pipe basic UNIX utilities and programs together is something that has always left me a little awestruck. The flexibility and simplicity there is almost profound. SysVinit was far from perfect, but you could at least trace the execution flow from basically start to finish and, if you understood basic *NIX utilities, have a good idea of exactly what was happening.

> The Unix philosophy has its uses for sure, but it's far from an universal truth in today's world.

Again, it's a philosophy, not a universal truth. A guiding light, if you will.

With systemd, that light is pretty dim, if it's on at all.

You really should. journald is not optional.

Also, since I've been "reading more", and I can check after I get back from lunch--at least at some point Debian shipped systemd without D-Bus on minimal installs. Maybe that's no longer the case, but the stuff I'm reading seems to be post-2015.

Or you can keep trying to big-time me instead of engage on the merits of your position. That's cool people stuff, I guess.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. I invited it, even; I'm wrong all the time and being wrong is how one learns. The big-timing I referred to is the refusal to materially engage. Instead he quotes Lennart about D-Bus--out of context? who knows! It isn't an indication of the state of the software in question, just his opinion at a point in time--and to tell me to go read (read what, exactly? what generosity in citation!). Oddly enough, though, I don't see you tagging in to lecture him about that sort of sneering. Why's that?

As just one example, the nspawn owning package requires a libnss package which pulls in systemd-resolve. I believe it also requires dbus.

Apologists are engaging in apologia, which means a defense of one's ideas. It's not suggesting a hidden agenda, to the contrary, it suggests the agenda is fully on display since it's plain what is being defended.