You replied with those lines after the bug was already resolved, and they don't match with your primary bug report well. In fact, they contradict your primary r

You replied with those lines after the bug was already resolved, and they don't match with your primary bug report well. In fact, they contradict your primary report where you wrote "I do not believe we will upgrade older computers to newer OS" and "it would be great if there was a way we could use systemd+journald in older OS" and "I do understand that systemd needs to be pid 1, but I wonder if a subset of functionality can still be exposed when it is not running as pid 1". Again, all of those things are entirely unrelated to it running as a pid1 in a container, and those parts of your original bug report are what Poettering responded to. You're reading way too much into that one bug. In fact, you could already run systemd in docker before you posted that bug if you go back to my first link to a mailing list thread about the very subject from 2014. Your main bug report made it sound like you were asking to run systemd as pid != 1, which is unrelated to running systemd in docker. Your clarification here only convinces me that you hold a grudge against systemd and wish to interpret benign comments in a bad light because, no matter how many times I read that bug, I cannot understand your claim that the original posting and Poettering's rejection of it is in any way related to running systemd in docker.