That was my thought exactly. Lots of things can use cgroups whether the init system "supports" it or not.

Most nights I power down and that means restarting most days. I pay little attention to boot times. Well, unless boot times become excessive like a certain proprietary system. All of my systems boot to the desktop in about a minute. Heck, I need that long to clean my belly button each morning, scratch my -ss, pick my nose, and otherwise generally just stare into space because I'm not a morning person. :-)

At one time I recall we started a conversation about ways to improve Slackware boot times. Not high on my priority list, but I recall that most (but not all) of the init scripts could be converted to ash. I don't know how much boot time that would save, but even that kind of change would require significant testing among the community.

I'm not a fan of systemd because of the use of C. I'm not a C programmer although I can read the basics and could learn more. I realize configuration files used in systemd are not C. Regardless, one of the features that attracts me to free/libre software is the ease with which I can customize the init process. I would miss that with systemd.

I disagree with udev being absorbed into the systemd sources. That is one area I wish Linus would step up and stop, requiring udev to again be separate. Yet somehow we'll survive if a fork of udev is necessary to avoid systemd.

Keep in mind that they want systemd to be the core foundation of an OS.
It is not suppose to be JUST an init system.

When you have that in mind, I think it make sense that udev, session tracking, etc.. are "swallowed" by systemd.

I think you guys misunderstand me (which is maybe just as well).
I couldn't care less about gnome being hardwired to systemd or not - as far as I'm concerned - gnome is d-e-a-d.
What does worry me is that systemd will be dependent upon gnome - ie if you want systemd (which I don't - but it may be rammed down my throat), I am deeply worried about gnome coming along for the ride ... (and that's what I have read somewhere - though dont ask me to quote it - just read it in the passing)

... but earlier:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4946879

This is a prime example of what I had previously said... Even the people promoting systemd appear to be confused...

What hope does anyone else have of making any sense of this thing?

The good part, for now anyway, is that udev is still somewhat modular to systemd, and while part of it, can act independent of it. This may change as to why Gentoo sponsored the forked eudev project, and why projects like mdev and hotplug2 came about to keep a segregated system device manager project active.

Oddly, the original Hotplug as a project is inactive, but not officially dead and is still supported through the Linux kernel, or at least was, but patches for it still exist. I know Android OS uses it in some ways and that some of the WRT projects use Hotplug and Hotplug2 for their device management daemons.

I highly doubt that systemd will be ever popular enough to make it a core Linux project, and since many alternatives exist like OpenRC, sysvinit, bsdinit, and even Upstart. If systemd can be replaced, so can udev, and that makes it less than necessary in the long run.

I'm not promoting, actually I'm saying what I read on Lennart G+ feed, the systemd list and on his blog.
I can show you if you want the part where he say all I said previously.

This would mean exterminating all other DE and WM out there.
This won't happen, this is not the plan.
If it would be the plan, I wouldn't be defending something like that.
The plan like I said, is to make systemd the core foundation of an OS, THAT'S ALL.
Like I already said, almost everything can be disabled at compile-time if you don't want to much feature creep.

Just saying, the eudev project is only a learning and fun experience for the gentoo developpers. Don't count on this to be full udev replacement, they said it clearly at a conference.

I'm not exactly a fan of the gentleman in question, his ideas or his software, but this kind of excessively personal, if not defamatory, rhetoric reflects badly on us as Slackware users.

Well since you put it that way . . .

I think an argument could be made that replacing the core foundation of an operating system with something completely foreign changes the very nature of the operating system itself. That's the problem. I think I'd rather have Linux remain Linux.

Give it a rest.

Boom.

Yeees - and so what?
And do you know explicitly what their plans are? If I were RH - it might be somewhat tempting ...
Maybe not - but again, do you actually _know_ what their plans are?
Now, that's a rather encompassing task - don't you think? Especially as there really aren't any problems with the current system ...

Continuing to bicker about the ultimate conclusion to a slippery slope argument is rather pointless, don't you think? I don't think there has ever been any evidence anywhere in the universe to suggest that systemd will start adopting gnome components...but of course, you 'read it in passing' and have forgotten the link (which, if it actually was said, was by another person taking the slippery slope argument to its most extreme conclusions). There is no way systemd will suddenly become dependent on gnome, and as for the reverse, it won't happen immediately (as previously indicated) but no one really knows what the future holds (and thus debating the point is moot until some sort of action or serious discussion by gnome devs actually takes place). I don't think anything has changed since the last big systemd thread, so I think threads like these are a wasted effort until udev is officially integrated into systemd without the option of compiling it on its own. When that happens (and Slackware is no longer able to keep using an older version of udev), then a discussion would perhaps be warranted.

Just my opinion, of course, but if you enjoy arguing over unicorns you can keep at it.