[nvrspyx]

I'm not super familiar with systemd or any of the lower level stuff like init systems in general, but I was under the impression that it's just an umbrella for many individual modules/binaries, like journald, etc, and not actually monolithic.

I get the argument against hard dependencies, which the individual modules seem to be dependent on each other, but is that really that abnormal with Linux programs? I more understand the criticism against higher level programs, like GNOME, having hard dependency on systemd specifically.

With all that said, I'm not doubting there's valid criticism as I'm sure that I'm missing for fundamental points of the "monolithic" argument as it relates to systemd. The above is just my sort-of layman impression.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> but I was under the impression that it's just an umbrella for many individual modules/binaries, like journald, etc, and not actually monolithic.

If you can't use journald without systemd, and you can't use systemd without journald, or they really modular in any meaningful sense? I can take a Void Linux system and drop in rsyslog and chronyd and maybe dnsmasq (for DNS caching); I can't take a Void system and add journald and timesyncd and resolved.

[BenjiWiebe]

I'd agree that systemd is modular, but I wouldn't list journald as an example of modularity.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

What would you use as an example of modularity? The closest that most of it gets is that you can disable features and put back the non-systemd alternatives, but I'm not aware of any systemd components that play nice on non-systemd systems except for maybe systemd-boot nee gummiboot (which benefits from running before systemd and therefore is less inclined to depend on it).