You are joking, right?
The reason people use RHEL not Debian is primary because tons of commercial software built on SAP, Oracle and similar are *supported* on RHEL.
Interesting. That would explain part of its appeal. I'm a long-time Debian user who happens to have obtained an RHCE recently. RHEL left me with many positive impressions, but there's much that I have yet to learn about it.
... People use RHEL because they need to have support for the apps they are running. Not because it uses this init system or other - none of RHEL admins really care about it as long as it is supported by the business apps they need to operate.
Well, I've seen comments from RHEL admins who would disagree with that statement (I believe here on Slashdot).
And also I don't quite get the shitstorm going on about systemd. I think compared to sysvinit it is a great step forward.
For me, Linux is about control. That's the great thing about Linux, and the Unix philosophy in general: it's resulted in an incredibly stable system that at the same time is possible to tune in a very fine-grained manner. That's why I like Debian. The systems that I've been building and maintaining with it over the years just keep getting more complex. My favorite ones are usually the cheapest ones: built on a shoe-string budget, but running everything including the kitchen sink. Importantly, I've managed to get it all to boot up and behave just the way I want precisely because of the extent to which I can control sysvinit, cron, rsyslog, udev, fstab, networking, and so on. I've accomplished much that way and so it's worth a lot to me.
Apparently, systemd replaces all that and more with a single monolithic structure, which seems more akin to the Windows way of doing things. It's main selling point appears to be boot-up speed, and while I can understand how laptop users (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, etc.) would appreciate to that, IMO the cost that we must all pay for that extra speed is just too high. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for improving the Linux boot process, but not at any cost. I can appreciate the idea that sometimes it's necessary to take the bull by the horns, but in this case I think an incremental approach is still the better way.