I do not want to comment on the decision to adopt or not adopt any init system. But Lennart's response is flawed. I recall:
1 devfs was deprecated, with udev being the hailed successor
2 Ubuntu develops upstart
3 Lennart develops systemd
4 udev gets merged into upstart
5 Lennart criticizes Ubuntu for sticking to an inferior init system which requires Upstart to rely on orphaned infrastructure such as *independent udev*. WHAT? This might well be an issue of control, but if it is, I can see where it comes from.
6 On an unrelated side note systemd now also contains a reimplementation of readahead.
It might well be that systemd is superior infrastructure, I cannot judge this. But the way to go about and call out others as control freaks, when what I see is unilateral decisions being made in systemd-land. If it is not possible to use udev anymore without systemd without being critized, something is very wrong.