Nha, ... It's just getting attention (after being dead for ten years) because of Guix (that's GNU + Linux).
see: http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/

Edit:"real" GNU (micro-kernel + hurd) doesn't even need a traditional init.

Many projects are using systemd provided functions right now, so there is already a current benefit.

It doesn't have to change, it is changed in the systemd developers vision. If you follow that vision is entirely up to you. Now, as it seems many other developers, software and distribution developers, share this vision and they are working on it together. This of course also means that less people share your vision, which in turn means that less people develop software and distributions the way you like it.
I would like to see a quote from one of the systemd guys that shows that their goal is to replace GNU tools, or, if you can't deliver that, even just your train of thought that brings you from "look, here are these problems with traditional package management and here is how we would solve them" to "let's just replace the GNU userland". Regarding "progress for the sake of progress" (I guess you meant change for the sake of change, which would make more sense), if you have read that blog post, how have you managed to miss the part where they show up existing problems and also the part where they propose solutions for that? If you address a problem and find a solution this is not "change for the sake of change" or "progress for the sake of progress", it is "progress that addresses existing problems".
I don't quite get where you are getting at. Are you arguing that because daemontools exist no one should even try to develop other solutions? Isn't that like arguing that no one should work on Krita, since we have already Gimp? Or the Gedit shouldn't exist because we have already Vim and Emacs? How about the countless WMs?
I think you may be missing a few central points of open source development, like "there are no rules except respect the license" and "if you don't like it then write something else".
I get a deja-vu feeling here. Yes, parts of what systemd does have existed before. That is not the point. The point is that makes development easier, because of things like having everything in one source tree, easier testing, ... . I have explained this to you countless times, feel free to go back to other discussions for a longer explanation.

Somewhere in this forum, in a thread not more than a couple of years old, Mr. Volkerding said he was using Xfce. That is all subject to
change, of course.

I found that while doing a websearch for systemd commands. I've no idea if it's right or wrong, useful or useless. I did find alternative commands to do the same thing, but that one stood out as being long-winded compared to changing a single number.

So interesting question, if this is the case, and we're being forced into this "vision" how will unquestioning this rampant progressivism against the established bring benefit to the whole if choice is ultimately eliminated? Down the road it is expected systemd will replace many more components, so question on that, when is enough enough?

You still don't get it, as it seems. You are not forced into his vision, you still are totally free to not use it or provide alternatives. Choice doesn't magically appear because you want to have choice, choice is only existing if someone takes up the work to provide options, maintains them and make them appealing enough for people to use them over other options. Also, where is the "rampant progressivism against the established" you speak about? How can progress that actually solves problems be something like that?
Regarding "when is enough enough?", the answer to that is pretty easy: Enough is enough when the systemd developers decide that it is enough, or when an alternative vision comes up that seems more appealing and is chosen over systemd.

Might I ask you to provide some answers to the questions I have asked you in previous posts?

What problems? I'm an amateur, a hobbyist GNU/Linux user, so I don't have your level of knowledge or experience. I've been running Slackware for about 10 years now, learning in a casual pick-it-up-as-I-go-along way, and I haven't come across any problem that justifies such a drastic change. Or justifies making choice more difficult for those who want to avoid systemd. I'm going to take a lot of convincing that the systemd cabal's plans don't equal less or no choice.

I'm curious to what these problems are as well because likewise, I've been using GNU/Linux since 2000 and the only problems I've found then to be when distributions and projects start to go overly rampant in complexity that gaining control over your own system becomes a nightmare.

Likewise I find that "so called problems" only seem to be pointed out and inflated to actually be problems when politics seem to be involved.

To be honest, the only problem I have found is not in Linux, but BSD having a proper automounting tool that works without a sacrifice ritual.

As English is not my native language I used the wnb application to find its meaning. Here's what I got:As far as I know, intents of systemd promoters are not hidden at all, and providing it is in no way illegal, so to use the word "cabal" is just ridiculous in my opinion.

Anyway the possible future inclusion of systemd in Slackware is something up to its maintainer, so PV is the only person to whom you could reasonably address your requests or complaints in that matter.

But that would be completely useless as he has already publicly stated that he is aware of the issue, and suggested that we make that a thread's topic again only when systemd will have been included in Slackware

At last, we agree on something.
From:
http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-...x-systems.html

1 members found this post helpful.

This is a very patronising post, and one that yet again misses the whole point.

Let me put it in plain English for you once more:

Why should we have to adopt a completely new way of doing the very same thing, a way which requires us to trawl through yet more documentation just to learn a different way of doing the same thing? Any answer to that? If you exclude the big American corporations and defence-related bodies you will find that 99% of business requirements are satisfied by Linux and/or BSD as they stand - in other words, without systemd. The vast majority of business are small- to medium-sized businesses, and their needs are pretty basic - file and printer sharing, backups, proxies, firewalls, VPNs, whatever.

The runlevel example might be beneath you, but it's not beneath me. Over the years, from the early 2000s, I have really struggled to pick up all sorts of BSD and Linux skills along the way. New skills don't come easy to me. Again I ask you, why the bloody hell should I throw this away just to satisfy some smart-arse who has decided to do it all differently, just to achieve the same ends? Is there something I can't do as it stands with Linux-BSD that I will be able to do once systemd is imposed from above on us? I really do wish somebody would answer this question. One thing is for sure, while you were looking down your nose at my simple example of something that was more complex with systemd than without, you seem to have forgotten to enlighten us all with your own much more sophisticated examples.

And no, it's not satisfactory of Tobi to tell us we will miss functionality eventually. What functionality? And even if we do miss it, that will be because certain bullies, representing certain interests, are currently appropriating unto themselves all rights to the future of Linux, in the process making sure all the exit doors are shut. It's not because they are adding rich layers of functionality that aren't already there. But perhaps you or Tobi or someone else better informed than I can tell me I'm wrong. I won't hold my breath.

4 members found this post helpful.

In the blog post of the KDE developers you see real world problems solved (namely, having to interact with countless implementations with different interfaces of the exact same thing), in the blog post you linked to real world problems are listed, there are others, like don't having to needlessly duplicate security relevant code. Of course, it is fine that you don't have problems with your system as it is, but that doesn't mean that others have these problems.
There is no need to justify less choice. Less choice only happens when people stop to provide options. The advent of systemd does not make magically all other options disappear, it is people that make choices disappear, namely those that stop to develop or maintain options other than systemd.

2 members found this post helpful.

Or when providing those other options becomes too difficult, as may happen with distros with small teams of developers.

1 members found this post helpful.

Yes, there is an answer to that, a very simple one: You don't have to adopt any of these, But you have to maintain and promote your existing choices, if you want to keep them. But when I see something like this:It seems to me that you are the one missing the point. Do you really think that Mr. Poettering and Mr. Sievers came up with systemd and suddenly all people, out of nowhere, have to adapt to its vision? This "smart-arse" came up with solutions to existing problems in a way he saw fit, just as Gentoo people did with OpenRC and Ubuntu people did with Upstart, otherwise no one would care about systemd. You may have to adapt in the future, when more people stop to develop alternatives or maintain the existing ones, but that is not something that can't be blamed on systemd developers.
Seriously? A KDE developer that doesn't want to maintain interfaces countless NTP implementations and using systemd-timedated instead is bullying you? A KWin maintainer that wants to replace the convoluted and hard to maintain startkde script with systemd-logind functionality is bullying you? That is what this all about, you are bullied by developers that want to make their own work easier? If you can't see the flaws in that logic then no amount of posts from me will ever do anything about your opinion, sorry.

1 members found this post helpful.