Having a TTY stream parser in systemd seems pretty odd until you read the reasoning why[1]: there's already one in the kernel, and having one in systemd means o

Having a TTY stream parser in systemd seems pretty odd until you read the reasoning why[1]: there's already one in the kernel, and having one in systemd means one less thing that has to be in the kernel. Which has some interesting implications. If you're moving stuff out of the kernel into systemd, then the reason it was presumably in the kernel was because there was a need for it, and the kernel couldn't depend on anything else being around to maintain it. So while the kneejerk "systemd isn't complete until it can send mail" response is incorrect, there IS a very real concern for people who are against systemd here -- if kernel stuff is being moved into systemd, it's because it's viewed as nearly equal with the kernel in terms of being required in terms of Linux. That means eventually, nobody will be able to escape the pull of systemd. (This isn't the first time this has happened, either: a lot of the responsibility for managing cgroups is going to be falling on systemd[2].) 1) http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-November/014808.html http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-Nov... 2) http://lwn.net/Articles/555922/ http://lwn.net/Articles/555922/