Comment by einpoklum
3 months ago
D-Bus is good enough for all sorts of things. But you absolutely don't need a behemoth like systemd to use D-Bus. A D-Bus communication option can be added to existing programs and utilities, or new ones could be fashioned for which it is a central mode of operation; and still there would have been no an ever-growing pile of centrally-maintained and inter-dependent artifacts.
As for SystemV... as I mentioned in another comment - in hindsight, that was not the issue. There were and are SystemV alternatives [1]. One can even write one that uses D-Bus in an opt-in fashion, to foster other facilities' use of it.
The init system excuse is very much like the stone in the fable of the stone soup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Soup - it's what gets the vagabond's foot in the door, and is the first ingredient for the soup. But actually, the stone carried no significance, and the resulting soup is pretty much the same thing as without the stone part.
[1] : ruint, OpenRC, launchd, s6, nosh, finit, procd, upstart etc. See brief description and links at https://alternativeto.net/software/sysvinit/ for example.
s/SystemV/sysvinit/
and one more thing about that: For PC users and "vanilla" machine setups - sysvinit, weirdly, still works fine. Startup is quick, and developers don't live in pain making it work. Of course it is kind of lame design-wise, but it's not even that we just _had_ to replace it - we've still not reached even that point.