>because it's good software that might stop being developed soon.
Having looked at the code. Calling it good software is a dubious proposition at best.
As mentioned in another comment. There are other init replacements that are seeking to solve the same issues as systemd. I bet you can’t name them though since they were never properly evaluated.
Of all the standard anti-systemd talking points this one is one of the most puzzling rejections of reality. Every major distribution reviewed the landscape. Look through https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd and all of the votes, countless threads, etc. You can disagree with the conclusions but it’s just absurd to say that people weren’t aware that there were alternatives.
(Also, I'm not sure whether that was intended to be an ad hominem that I personally haven't looked for alternatives, or a statement about the state of the industry that I haven't been made aware of them, but I can in fact name alternatives, and mostly because I've followed debates like this.)
In the end it was a tie in the Debian technical committee. The chairman’s vote was counted twice so systemd won. Then the people who had voted for systemd resigned rather than actually implement their choice.
This is just not true at all. (I'm a Debian package maintainer; I paid close attention to both the vote itself and the discussion around it.)
Debian uses ranked preference voting. Of the nine committee members, only one ranked sysvinit above either systemd or upstart. The rest were split about which of the two, with systemd winning the tie-break vote, but both were acceptable choices to all eight. There was no tie about whether systemd would have been an acceptable choice; both systemd and upstart were accepted 8-to-1.
The one member who voted in favor of sysvinit resigned after trying to start a general resolution (a vote of the entire project) to overrule the committee, and being told by basically everyone that this was inappropriate. He did not resign over systemd; he resigned, at best, over the process, and really I'd say he resigned because the project had lost confidence in him as someone able to act reasonably in contentious technical situations, which is basically the job of a technical committee member.
Nobody on the technical committee had refused to implement systemd support. The technical committee is not an implementation body anyway, but none of the members have refused to, say, implement systemd support in their packages, and they all remain members of the project.
I’m not sure how you think that relates to my comment. As I said, it’s bizarre to suggest that the problem was a lack of awareness about the alternatives when there was such a long process doing exactly that.
Having looked at the code. Calling it good software is a dubious proposition at best.
As mentioned in another comment. There are other init replacements that are seeking to solve the same issues as systemd. I bet you can’t name them though since they were never properly evaluated.