There is no "turtles" issue here. Pid 1 is special - if it dies, the system panics. It is good design to keep pid 1 as simple as possible and put the complex job logic in a sub-process. There are only two things on unix which init must do: reap any children it inherits, and start something else to do the heavy lifting.
Even sysV init works this way. The current sysV init is very simple -- the invocation complexity lives in /etc/rc and the related rc.d scripts which operate as subprocesses.
"Smart people" is a silly thing to say. We're all smart people and sometimes smart people make poor technical decisions. Let the matter lay upon its technical merit, not upon empty platitudes.
> There is no "turtles" issue here. Pid 1 is special - if it dies, the system panics. It is good design to keep pid 1 as simple as possible and put the complex job logic in a sub-process. There are only two things on unix which init must do: reap any children it inherits, and start something else to do the heavy lifting.
If the kernel fucks up the system dies and the kernel is much larger than systemd. Either way most of systemd's functionality is in other subprocesses.
Even sysV init works this way. The current sysV init is very simple -- the invocation complexity lives in /etc/rc and the related rc.d scripts which operate as subprocesses.
"Smart people" is a silly thing to say. We're all smart people and sometimes smart people make poor technical decisions. Let the matter lay upon its technical merit, not upon empty platitudes.