Multiple binaries can still be part of a monolithic system (just like multiple services can still be part of a monolithic system in the web services world). A well-archetected system has strong separation of concerns — and well-defined, reasonable interfaces — between components.

If I’m writing a piece of code and I start wanting to rewrite the world around it, that’s a sign that I’m probably doing the wrong thing.

In the case of systemd, you actually have a decent case that a lot of things in Linux and the rest of the POSIX world could stand to be improved. A good, clean, portable, systems-focused approach could tackle all those things head on.

> "too monolithic" ... "too many binaries"

> We can't win

Juxtaposing two unrelated issues usually isn't a winning strategy.

In what universe does the number of binaries have anything to do with how monolithic something is?

You really don't understand the complaint?

It's that the plethora of binaries are too tightly coupled and are not at all modular or interchangeable, which is materially the same as being a monolith.

I think you are smart enough to know this, and are just feigning ignorance.

Not that it matters, but I'm really happy about systemd.

Sure I have to learn new things, sometimes stuff breaks, but that has always been the case. For me most problems were with upgrading Linux distributions.

Anyhow it's great to have less distribution specific stuff and less shell scripts. Thank you and all the other systemd devs.