No matter how many complaints you may find about SysV boot time -- or even discussion about how to improve it -- it does not make systemd's primary purpose solving that problem.
How many discussions does OpenStack's development team have about security? Is the primary purpose of OpenStack to provide security?
> Well, it is no longer optional to compile in systemd; it can still be deactivated at run time, but the code (and checks to see which one should be used) will always be there.
But that is not what the article said. It said, "Systemd made kdbus non-optional in its release." That implies that use of it is non-optional, which isn't the case at all. It is like saying Fedora has made Intel graphics non-optional because they ship support for it.
No matter how many complaints you may find about SysV boot time -- or even discussion about how to improve it -- it does not make systemd's primary purpose solving that problem.
How many discussions does OpenStack's development team have about security? Is the primary purpose of OpenStack to provide security?
> Well, it is no longer optional to compile in systemd; it can still be deactivated at run time, but the code (and checks to see which one should be used) will always be there.
But that is not what the article said. It said, "Systemd made kdbus non-optional in its release." That implies that use of it is non-optional, which isn't the case at all. It is like saying Fedora has made Intel graphics non-optional because they ship support for it.