* socket activation
* dependency management of startup
* log control
* service supervision.
Except, it did so by interfacing with the operating system in its native language, for example: log files were text.
It is not useful to complain about bash scripts, the original design of init was indeed dated and you’d be hard pressed to find people who don’t think so; so its an invalid point to make in this discussion.
I’m also not saying we should have ported SMF, one complaint I have about it is that it was a product of its time and used XML (much like launchd on macos, which is actually another supervising init btw ;D).
However taking inspiration would have been good, instead of creating software that appears like it belongs on a Windows/DOS based operating system rather than a unix-like.
As they say: working code or gtfo. Complaining about someone else's software project is so passé. No-one's forcing anyone to use systemd, Linux, or a computer.
What you right here just did, was exactly whining and complaining, except not even about anything that happened to you or that you have to deal with.
Why?
I hope you’re not actually responsible for anything.
I'm fine with that.
> and increases the barrier to port software to other unix-likes.
Don't care about "other Unix-likes", and in fact I wish they didn't exist.
> The non-optional/default features have been buggy and difficult to replace.
Let's not pretend as if the pre-systemd crap wasn't even more buggy.
> The overreliance on dbus turns the “the unix philosophy” ;) away. Text as a universal communication medium, everything is a file, etc.
Dbus is a text-based protocol based on files though. What a silly complaint.
P.S. Dbus sucks, but thankfully it would be pretty easy to replace in systemd if somebody got sick enough of dbus.