And there are things I do like about systemd, I also have to say. Especially the way you can pass a variable to a server with @, like run 2 instances on different ports.
I know very well that the rc scripts were a pain to maintain as I've written some as well in the past. So I really understand the benefit of upstream-provided service configs.
The transition to systemd for me as a user was just a bit more difficult. It deviates so much from earlier conventions, and adapting it I found difficult. It enforces a lot more than just the init system.
For some reason I always end up having to compile some of the software I use myself, and having to make scripts then. I found this a lot easier with OpenRC than with Systemd (having pretty much no knowledge of either).
But anyway I'm just one user and you support millions, I know you're making the right choices for the platform. Thanks for taking the time to reply to me in fact!
Arch is a pragmatic distribution first and foremost. If we can build systemd, and ship it as-is to have a complete init, and more features along with it, that is much more enticing then the alternative.
> I think it (openrc) would have been a good choice for Arch, for me it would have been better than systemd.
It would still entail maintaining some form of initscripts. I don't think most users realize how much of a burden this is, they don't really deal with that part of the system.