Yes, I literally say there is nothing wrong with the idea, so you going ahead and demanding I criticize the idea, is just absurd.
Really, this is completely bizarre. I even say that the thinking behind replacing sudo is fine, yet you are here complaining that I don't deliver technical arguments against something which I even told you might be completely valid to do from a technical perspective. Baffling.
I'm not sure there's much point engaging further, I hope you have a good rest of the day.
Do you understand the difference?
I think that portability is a deliberate anti-goal of systemd.
> In contrast, if you want to use, say, run0, you must run systemd as PID 1,
No, you must run something on pid 1 that implements the spec, similar to how musl can be used instead of glibc - they both implement the same spec.
Run0 expects pid 1 to behave a certain way, much like my web browser expects web servers to behave a certain way.
Yes, and that is one of the things I dislike about it. (In fairness, the list of things I like about it and the list of things I dislike about it are both fairly long.)
> No, you must run something on pid 1 that implements the spec, similar to how musl can be used instead of glibc - they both implement the same spec.
> Run0 expects pid 1 to behave a certain way, much like my web browser expects web servers to behave a certain way.
If there's only one implementation, then it's not portable. If a webapp uses a web API that only Chrome implements, it's not portable regardless of whether Google published a spec for their non-standard behavior. There are dozens of web servers and web clients that all speak HTTP, there is one systemd.