>>19Your point is interesting, although my first instinct is to quibble over terms, but I think you're assuming that just because the exposed surface of the kernel is large, init systems must use it, and I completely disagree with that. Sysvinit is hardly complex, and [a modified version of] it works for me despite growth of the kernel. Unless too many devs sell their souls to dbus I forsee no problems in the future, no matter how many features are added to Linux.
Certainly it is true that as the surface of the kernel becomes larger, the possible maximum complexity of an init system skyrockets, but I am hopeful that secondary forces such as user adoption will prevent that complexity from actually being reached.