The road forward for systemd

Lennart also is misguided - target based systems are NOT good. Most of users _need_ NetworkManager to be started as soon as possible.

In essence, the goal is usually 'run everything ASAP' and not just 'run GNOME'. There are generally very little subsystems that don't need to be started on each boot.

However, sometimes we DO need to delay some service (a good example is CUPS). And that's where his ideas might be useful.

'Involuntary confinement' with cgroups might also be useful as an optional feature in Upstart or other init systems (even in standard Sys-V-ish daemon startup scripts).

There's a number of posts in this thread that would, in my opinion, at least qualify to get a short answer, possibly referring to the full article, instead of just being brushed off like this.

Denying anybody the right to comment when the original post (which is quite lengthy indeed) hasn't been fully read, or understood might be OK from a "let's save us all time (especially myself)" point of view, but it also kills off discussions that would otherwise contribute to a better understanding of why the world needs yet another, incompatible system to start their OS. (Yes, not a given, people don't like changes without immediate, positive net effects, and rightfully so.)

More importantly, what systemd needs, especially in its early and uncertain phase of development, is awareness. You don't create that by killing off discussions, you create that by patiently explaining people what it is, does, its benefits and disadvantages. Over and over.