Ive spent the majority of my career building distributions. Trust me as a distro developer of some distinction (linux.com once said that I did for slackware what Ubuntu did for debian, my distro at its height ran 95% of all computers in an entire country)
Ooh, that explains things.
when i tell you i know the decision making process and the motivation for adopting systemd has absolutely nothing to do with technical superiority.
So what is it, then?
But its worthless debating you. I showed you a legitimate case for not ever integrating core utilities. You responded with work arounds. I told you work arounds are not good enough.
An option that makes something do exactly what you want is a workaround? In what way?
You pretend I changed topics !
More like you ran out of geniune technical concerns and started ranting about philosophy.
This seems to be the main fundamental disagreement here: I just don't think that the Unix Philosophy has holy status. Hell, the Linux kernel violates it. Why aren't you running HURD, anyway?
Then you give examples of binary formats nobody minds... all of them databases, the very thing I said in five posts earlier was the only case in all software where binary formats for textual data had a legitimate case.
Logs dont have the needs of databases or the constraints. Databases are an edge case. You dont apply edge case reasoning to core technology. Its bad engineering.
A database is a nice fit for a log system. What were the errors yesterday? What are all the messages logged by this service? What was logged on Monday, between 10 and 12 AM? What are the statistics of the various types of messages? Those are all questions that a database is well qualified to answer, and the practical concerns I have when doing system administration.
And here is the real issue. In the past I could swap out any utility on my box for any other utility that was compatible. This allowedfor experimentation. For competition and evolution. I could replace sysv in any distro with upstart or openrc. Nothing else would be affected. Nothing would break. Now if I try replace the init system it breaks the message bus and that breaks the desktop.
Finally another technical matter. You are aware that dbus has multiple implementations of it, right? It's not intrinsically bound to systemd. While systemd does have its own implementation, nothing is stopping you from running another. In fact, since slackware doesn't use systemd, I imagine that's what they do.