>> But (serious question), why does it matter that systemd has an ntp daemon or that it subsumed udev? > >What does a time system have to with system start infr

>> But (serious question), why does it matter that systemd has an ntp daemon or that it subsumed udev? > >What does a time system have to with system start infrastructure? If you want to write a time daemon, write a time daemon: the chrony folks did, and it's pretty good. Lots of folks have switch away from the old school NTPd to it. > >But it stood on its own merits, was able to mature over time, and when people thought it good, they could willing start using it (or not). But my question was why does this matter? As far as I know, you don't have to use systemd's ntp thing. You might disagree with the project vision of systemd wanting to include an ntp daemon, but it sounds like it hasn't cause you or the chrony people any real harm. There was a good chance that, if systemd didn't have an ntp daemon, you'd have to replace your distro's default with chrony anyway. So just do that here, too, no? > And that is exactly my point about things being tightly-coupled. If I (rightly or wrongly) perceive journald to be garbage, how do I not-use it? You can't, AFAIK. And that sucks. I know you can disable its on-disk logs and enabled some other syslog service, though. In what way(s) is that insufficient? Are there any other example of tight coupling that are bothersome in systemd?