> systemd uses socket activation for it's dependency tracking. Not just that though. Otherwise it would have no dependency tracking at all for all those daemon

> systemd uses socket activation for it's dependency tracking. Not just that though. Otherwise it would have no dependency tracking at all for all those daemons that don't support socket activation (let alone stuff that has to be started in a certain order and doesn't communicate via sockets). In regards to runit: it does have a mechanism for handling dependencies - starting the other service in the start script (not great imho, but works). Also I don't quite see/understand your argument (edit: say why I should switch away from it) against OpenRC (or OpenRC+runit) - since it does do dependency tracking and has sane service scripts. And regards to systemd making everyones life easier: not mine sadly - had plenty of problems I never had with other init+rc systems (OpenRC, the OpenBSD one, the old Arch one, etc.), while gaining nothing I didn't already have previously (hell.. doesn't even boot faster - on average it boots & shuts down slower than before - median about the same). > And as with other systems, you use a utility to start and stop services - which some object to, but when you objectively look at it I really think you'd be hard pressed to be terribly worried about it. You mean that you start/stop services with something like systemctl start foo? Yeah, I don't see why one would have a problem with that. > The ancilliary utilities are not running in PID 1 though. I am not a fan of integrating everything under the kitchen sink (network management, dhcp, NTP, udev, cron, logging, etc.) into one big project though.