shutdown, reboot, … are symlinks on multiple different systemd repos, I have no reason to believe that is not the systemd standard.
systemd is not moving all it does into a single binary, obviously. Others already mentioned that and a bit further up I mentioned some systemd components that can be isolated too.
GNU posix is one extreme, and busybox the other, and the accusation is that the core of systemd sits too close to busybox, and the other projects might too group together things into fewer binaries that used to be multiple independent commands.
As for the core, I think that constitutes: services, logging (journald), cron+anacron (timers), blocking (systemd-inhibit), and mount.
I am probably missing some there. Timers does not interfere with other cron, but it is there whether you like it or not. Those components also come bundled with otherwise optional linux features like cgroup which do complicate using other posix tools with systemd, as you get unexpected results (like nohup not working).
shutdown, reboot, … are symlinks on multiple different systemd repos, I have no reason to believe that is not the systemd standard.
systemd is not moving all it does into a single binary, obviously. Others already mentioned that and a bit further up I mentioned some systemd components that can be isolated too.
GNU posix is one extreme, and busybox the other, and the accusation is that the core of systemd sits too close to busybox, and the other projects might too group together things into fewer binaries that used to be multiple independent commands.
As for the core, I think that constitutes: services, logging (journald), cron+anacron (timers), blocking (systemd-inhibit), and mount.
I am probably missing some there. Timers does not interfere with other cron, but it is there whether you like it or not. Those components also come bundled with otherwise optional linux features like cgroup which do complicate using other posix tools with systemd, as you get unexpected results (like nohup not working).