> Debian isn't really a leader. They're more of a passive target platform and their committee has people from various strokes of the Linux community. This is s

> Debian isn't really a leader. They're more of a passive target platform and their committee has people from various strokes of the Linux community. This is so not true that it is bordering on FUD. Systemd's leadership depended on debian making a fairly democratic, open and violently fought battle between upstart vs systemd. Everyone knew that Ubuntu (which is pretty much defacto installed in every laptop sold in Asia) would adopt systemd based on Debian's decision. It was an argument that went on for a year. Read it for yourself if you want - https://bugs.debian.org/727708 https://bugs.debian.org/727708 Not only did Debian make the decision to support systemd, it voted to NOT support other init systems. Mark Shuttleworth made his announcement the day after (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 ). It is an interesting position to take by painting systemd as the lackey of a capitalist monopoly trying to take over the world. I can see how that can get a lot of mindshare. The truth is far simpler - systemd is far superior.