> This seems a classic case of developers making choices based on reasons important to developers, not users.
If this change leads to better maintainability, the users will ultimately benefit as well.
> Here we have the case of a single Gnome developer deciding that his unilateral decision is worth the potential loss to Gnome of every non-systems OS. How does that make sense?
How does it make sense to waste time by maintaining support for operating systems like Solaris or OpenBSD that nobody uses on the desktop anyway?
Also, systemd is technically miles ahead of every other init implementation. The Linux community should embrace and leverage its functionality instead of starting yet another boneheaded turf war on whether to adopt it, like Ubuntu/upstart is doing right now. Lack of unity is what keeps Linux from succeeding on the desktop, just like it allowed the rise of Windows NT against UNIX a few years ago. Unfortunately, most people don't realize that and blather about what they think is lack of "flexibility" and "choice" etc..