possible motivation for not supporting forced-support of multiple init options

If we assume that the human resources going into Debian don't change rapidly, those who need to keep systems working, like me, may not be as well served by having options for init due to sacrifices needed in areas of time or quality for supporting multiple options. It seems a product decision must be made to prioritize portability (user choice), time needed to deliver, and quality of the product.

The Debian TC already found systemd to be the technically superior choice. It makes sense to want to use the best technical solution as broadly as possible, meaning systemd support should be a priority for Debian. However, systemd only supports Linux-based systems, which accounts for ~98.4% of Debian's user base according to popcon data[1].

With regard to other Debian archs, it's straightforward to look at the ecosystem and conclude that it's dominated by the Linux kernel over the alternative kernel options. In fact, according to popcon data, only ~1.6% of users run hurd, kfreebsd, or have an unknown arch.

Given those stats, forcing support for the other kernels basically means holding back ~98.4% of Debian users to support those other choices. In order to have those choices available a sacrifice must be made in terms of time needed to deliver a release or quality of a release or both.

I don't think the resistance to supporting multiple init options has so much to do with not caring about the other viewpoint as much as not wanting to sacrifice the benefits of what they see as the best way forward for 98.4% of the user base.

wt

[1]http://popcon.debian.org/