As others have already pointer out, you are wrong for assuming this is like systemd, so I won't further beat that horse.
However I think it's foolish for Shuttleworth to go down this path. It's inevitable that systemd will start to require that it get's it's hooks into package management. Long story short, the way fixes are applies to systems is fundamentally broken. Whether it's because someone can't find a way to tell what needs to be restarted or can't impose a way to restart all services without down time or can't find a way to apply changes to all containers or whatever half thought out problem is the excuse, it's broken. And the only fix will be to bundle it into the logic of systemd. Amongst other things, a package format will need to be mandated because supporting multiple formats is stupid or hard or out-of-scope
No one has been able to oppse the systemd maintainers except the kernel developers when it comes users space interfaces. Canonical hasn't been able to stand its ground against these developers in the past. I doubt they will in the future either. Shuttleworth is creating another failure.
Lennart Poettering's long story short: "`su` is really a broken concept.
One day, systemd will become too complex or something
At which point it will collapse in upon itself producing a singularity, the nature of which we currently lack the ability to truly understand. Then it will truly suck.
The best part is the service descriptor files follow a standard. If all people did at this conference was convert package init scripts to systemd I would be ecstatic.
Honest question (to who ever might know)
People will tell you init scripts can be and can point you to standards for writing them, but in practice it usually doesn't work out too well. Not in a way that takes advantage of the various features of any given system. Distributions tend to be unique in various ways.
I'm just wondering if systemd fixes that or if each distro is still going to have to roll their own because of distro unique conventions? And of course there's the corollary question, is the plan to fix this by forcing distributions to all behave the same? (e.g "You will do it this way because systemd will not allow anything else.")
...and tell them it dates to 1992, when high-end PCs were shipping with mayyybe 16-32GB RAM, a single 486 processor, 640x480x16 graphics, a few dozen megabytes of storage, and no networking.
I know I wasn't buying high end at the time, but I didn't think I was I slumming it that much.
It's a car. There will always be the physical component as a point of failure. Adding an electronic component on top of that adds another point of failure. In some cases the function is too important to add unnecessary points of failure.
I would try to think of a car analogy, but
Fortunately, some of us had the foresight to see this coming. It's just a matter of releasing sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere to help protect us from these kinds of natural events. Unfortunately most people aren't equipped to do their part to combat this.
To that end I have started a charitable organization that can do the work to supplement the CO2 in our atmosphere. To make it easier for others who cannot do this themselves, we will sell Carbon Debits to allow others to offset their carbon production deficiencies.
Some may mistake this as some elaborate scheme to make great amounts of wealth and resources disappear in a puff of smoke. I assure you, our methods are far more sophisticated than that.
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen