Isn't D-Bus hate getting a bit old now? It's obviously here to stay. I'm not clear on the reasons against it. Breaking "everything is a file" is probably one of them. If it were that easy to map it onto a filesystem, surely someone would have done it by now? I think speed was another but I don't know if that's still an issue. What do you propose instead?
Systemd support in Archlinux is good, add e4rat and is easy to get fast booting procces.
Interesting, I was thinking of testing systemd in Kubuntu Natty. Are you using systemd frome here?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/systemd
I didn't say it wasn't still maintained, I fixed a couple of bugs myself the other day, but it seems to have lost momentum since Roy left. Having said that, I still think it's fairly feature-complete, it's just lacking some of the modern extras that systemd has like a D-Bus interface, path-based activation (inotify) and PolicyKit integration.
That didn't answer my last question. Sure, eikenberry is right, it's probably not needed on a server, but clearly developers have seen a need for it on the desktop, a need that has outweighed saving CPU time and memory on ever more powerful machines. I actually installed D-Bus on a Pentium 120 once because I wanted to use Bluez 4 on it. The overall performance wasn't going to break any records but it was still very usable.
It's a shame that systemd does require D-Bus rather than making it optional as some server distros will inevitably find themselves forced to use it but really, what are we talking about here? Current usage on my desktop machine is about 20MB/1MB virtual/real RAM usage for the system daemon. On a server, it may be less. As for CPU time, it probably won't consume any after booting and how often is your server going to do that?