That is indeed the most plausible explanation...

Are you mentally challenged? Because anybody that even has to ask that question is likely not capable to understand the answer.

Indeed. Maybe in a few years, it will have reached the level of stability to be rightfully considered as _alternate_ init system, but at this time systemd has no business being considered anything but experimental.

Why ever would systemd opponents be interested in fixing systemd's defects? That makes no sense at all. There are well working init-systems. There is no need for systemd. There are good reasons against it. Why is it even considered a valid alternative at all?

If the systemd movement was sane, that is exactly what would happen. Instead they have the total confidence and unshakable faith in their chosen fetish that otherwise only religious fanatics have. From the time I realized this, I have lost all respect for them and all motivation to argue the case: These people are not sane or rational. They do not want choice or freedom. They do not listen to arguments, no matter how accurate or justified. They want their thing to be the only thing allowed and though shalt not have any other thing. They are the enemy and must be fought.

Indeed. Basically they voted to keep this unresolved for the moment. Of course, the systemd fanbois want to sell this as a victory for their side.

Unfortunately, you summary is accurate. I still do not understand how these people could creep in. The sheer magnitude of resistance should give them pause and reconsider whether they may be doing something wrong. Instead: Total confidence, absolutely no acknowledging of problems, no interest at all in compromise. It it is almost like arguing with religious fanatics...

Seems things are really going down the drain. Citizens are getting morphed into slaves, essentially.

So? And what part of your definition is inconsistent with my statement? I frankly do not see any...

I get that. You are just not being funny at all, and that would have been the only merit. Apparently the moderators disagree, so disregard my comment.

And that is a direct lie. One often heard from systemd advocates though. Just as if it comes from some sort of play-book.

There is a difference between "attacks" and valid criticism. Calling everybody that criticizes systemd and its adoption into Debian a "troll" or an "attacker" is unfounded and represents an extreme form of trolling itself. One could get the rather strong impression that the systemd advocates do not want any dialog or have sufficient valid arguments to deal with the criticism voiced. Instead they revert to this form of primitive emotional manipulation.