For those who do not know, systemd, which was introduced by Red Hat developers, became a behemoth that tries to do more than just an init system. Some arguments against it are:
- hard to maintain, too big - not on the KISS principle
- is driving other components and applications to depend on it, thus forcing distributions towards systemd and making alternatives less common.
If you have any arguments that explain why [technically] systemd is a better choice, feel free to add to the conversation. Is it bad for freedom? I would like your opinions on this too. I couldn't gather much beyond the usual "systemd is the future, shut up and move on" that I saw on Debian forums by the time of the switch. Let's see where you folks stand (or if you care about the war at all).
Many distributions were created to have a different init system. Void Linux, for instance, is a DIY distro (like Arch) that brings runit. You'll also find that the GNOME desktop is becoming more dependent on systemd, and it's making systemd-free distros have some difficulty when packaging it. I personally go for MATE because of it.
Discussion at Void Forums about whether or not to continue providing GNOME for Void Linux.
"Without Systemd" webpage