"Linux on the desktop" has already arrived. In fact, it arrived many years ago. The only thing it lacks -- by most people's definition of it -- is ubiquity; a sizeable market percentage that is measured in natural numbers.
In my opinion the only way to ever reach such ubiquity is if one particular distribution gets Apple or MS size marketing behind it, and as such it would dwarf all the others into relative obscurity anyway, making any sort of incompatibilities moot, since whatever is in that distribution is what the proprietary ISPs will package for.
Technical excellence will only get an OS so far, and any tweaking in the margins -- by shaving yet another few seconds off booting or having a standardised init system -- isn't going to make a platform more popular.
That said, of course init could do with a replacement, and systemd seems (the init part anyway) to have some desirable features. But realistically, there's no hurry to push it as the next silver bullet that will finally make X happen with any distribution that doesn't adopt it going to be left behind.
It *certainly* isn't a good enough excuse to demand preempting other interesting software for.
>> a poorly architected replacement
>Care to share examples or specifics?
Well, if a main author of a project basically concedes there's no point in sending in patches concerning portability because the software is too specific already, that makes it cowboy-coding to me, irrespective of whether he is the best codeslinger in town.