From what I remember from the time when dbus was created, the main issue at that time was that there was too many different messaging systems and, in addition to some technical issues, none was gaining enough consensus to normalize the situation. Both Gnome and KDE have experienced how difficult it was to change the messaging system only to found that there are each duplicating many works in a incompatible way.

The requirement to define a strict binary protocol was found to be the best way to normalize the situation. And this was a big success: since dbus is used by Gnome and KDE, all the low level services can publish an API that can be used by both projects. The initscripts didn't follow this trend and are now regarded as obsolete because there are unmanageable from dbus. I hope this show how normal is the central position of dbus into systemd.

The fact is that you want a machine that boot and automatically start some services. Yes you can manually call initscripts, but you need an other part to make you scripts called at boot time. This other part is either sysvinit+sysv-rc, or sysvinit+file-rc, or upstart, or systemd, or some others unusual ways. So I still keep my position that's the initscript that depend on sysv-rc or something other to be called at boot time. it's not an hazard if the Debian dependency graph has been corrected that way when upstart was packaged.

Calling a script at boot time with systemd is no a hack at all, and from the script point of view this will change nothing.

I don't understand how the konqueror example is related to systemd.

Ok, I understand you position.

Actually dbus is essentially a normalized binary protocol (http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-specification.html) and this was on purpose to allow differents implementations to cooperate. The communication part (the transport in dbus jargon) is not so strongly defined (there is multiple transports). How to send and receive a message could see some evolutions in the future (for example using kernel dedicated message passing instead of general sockets).

The idea is to not bound developers to a specific code to exchange dbus messages. From the view of the others applications, a specific application only have to comply to the binary protocol and to specify an API.

Nice to see that you make real analysis of systemd. I have read your progress.

I found curious your position about dbus. Since it's a central piece since so many years, it's logic that more and more services depend on it to publish an API.

Have you considered that your various reasons to disagree on systemd regarding UNIX philosophy could be useful to others peoples?

You try to link my small error on a 'ls' option to the QI of the systemd-proponents. If you think this is not unrelated I let you prove the relation to all the systemd-proponents. :-D

Contrary to you claim, I have nothing against peoples that prefer to use sysvinit over systemd. It there are happy with it, them there simply must take care of it themselves, because I am afraid for them that most of the maintainers of the leading distributions will probably not support system V init in the long term.

Now you can ignore systemd if you are just happy with system V init, or you can try to improve systemd if you think that you can propose a better architecture. But trying to keep everyone using system V init is not a acceptable position for too many peoples.

I know nothing about Powershell, but want I can say is that systemd uses declarative unit configuration files to get the information on how it must manage a service. Given how the systemd binary work, I fail to see how you can compare it to a shell.

Ok, you have see it and I did not notice. Happy ?

It just delicious how you can link completely unrelated things trying to prove your point. That certainly would explain a lot of your inability to show real facts about how systemd architecture should be improved.

I have no problem (serious enough) with systemd, you claim that systemd have problem regarding UNIX philosophy rules, and I still waiting the various reasons you have to think that way so.

I have read some parts of the systemd source code, and you? Why do you refuse to give any of your various reason why you disagree on the systemd architecture?

I have read this document more than ten years ago.
Now, please show the "various reasons" why you disagree.

Hint: http://interviews.slashdot.org... (read the answer about systemd).

You did no explain anything at all about your reasons to disagree! Stop trying to escape the discussion. You have claimed that you have various reasons to disagree that Systemd is in line with the UNIX philosophy. I still waiting a list of your reasons.

I should have to used 'login" instead of "logind", sorry.

systemd-logind can replace the traditional login, but it uses the systemd infrastructure to do his job, what's a surprise.

It's simply because there choose to store the code of multiple applications in the same repository. There is already a lot of projects that do the same since a long time.

Then show to us what's we don't want to see, and explain what UNIX philosophy systemd breaks.

I don't give any credit to your conspiracy theory. Yes systemd is now a dominant component of the last distributions, like udev, dbus, xorg, NetowrkManager when there was introduced into the distributions at there time. This don't make them evil projects with the goal of controlling the ecosystem. An other example is git that have largely take over the others SCM in the open source community, do this make it an evil project that control an ecosystem? From the reactions I read, even get the feeling that it's just a few systemvinit fans that try to control the Linux evolution to keep them in the past forever.

Yes systemd is designed to make the maintainers work easier, your analysis is correct. Now what's broken for the users of systemd?

I don't comment on the RH support, as I only use Debian distribution or derived from Debian.

Without investigating the problem in detail, how can you be certain that systemd is the fundamental cause of your problem ? You hate it, ok, but this is not enough to make is the real cause of your problem, especially on Fedora that uses systemd since now, full 4 years. Searching on the internet, most of the USB mouse hang problem seem to be related to the kernel/udev management of the device suspend. Did you a least report the problem to the Fedora community?

I also pretend to have enough experience to very well know almost all this points. I am perfectly ready to listen at your explanations why the actual systemd architecture break any of this rules.

So it's your turn now.