So, very quick points before going into the core of the discussion:
> finit and initng are examples of plugin-based init systems.
There is a lot of innovative init systems out there, and none of them seems to have been considered. I agree, that's a shame but as I see it, systemd is only a transitional state where new architectures will be considered. I see systemd more like the recognition of the pain of shell scripts. The current situation is definitely too instable to stay as it.
> I'm also curious as to why you mention "recompile". The whole point of plugins is that you don't need to do that.
I strongly disagree. Dynamic libraries can be a point of failure of the system in so many ways I can't even imagine them all. We speak of a critical component of the system, it should be completely controlled.
Also, about the lack of Emacs-like plugin system, I would be frightened by this kind of extensibility as it would make the audit of a system far more complicated. I think we need some boundaries, the kind of a full interpreter wouldn't be able to give.
The question, then, is _what kind of extensibility is needed and acceptable_ ?
You seems to have an opinion on the matter, I would be happy to hear it.
From my point of view, the system proposed by systemd is acceptable and I don't miss any feature. Maybe I didn't dig to extreme corners, but be assured that I dig at least more than a simple install. It's not that bad.