I think systemd the init should be separated from the rest of it. This will allow it be more easily managed, secured, developed and be replaceable by other inits thus retaining one of the most important aspects of Linux and prevent any single entity beyond the kernel from gaining too much influence.<p>The functionality that creates these deeper tie ins to Gnome, udev and others today prevent other inits from working for instance with Gnome. Now they want to add a kernel bus. This will make it extremely difficult to replace systemd. Can any supporter of open source and Linux really support this?<p>A init is a critical subsystem and should have limited scope that is clearly defined, be thorougly tested for that scope and released. Continuously developing and adding features to it does not make for a stable experience. Debian Jessie is now on a outdated version of systemd 2.15 while Systemd is at 2.31.<p>Things like predictable network names are ironically named as now they are not predictable to end users and scripts that work across systems. Things like eth0, eth1, wlan0 abstract the underlying hardware. If your solution cannot even abstract it and retains the arcane bus names and makes it difficult to even read let alone work with the interface name how is it a solution.<p>Things like binary logging may be important to a small subset of users and they should have an option to enable it. But why should it be imposed on everyone by default? The technical debt of niche cases should go to those who want it.