From the thread, 2brainz, the person maintaining the init scripts, responding to why systemd: >> I haven't heard a good explanation of why systemd and not a di

From the thread, 2brainz, the person maintaining the init scripts, responding to why systemd: >> I haven't heard a good explanation of why systemd and not a different, new init system > There is none. Systemd came along, we thought it was great, some of us were already involved with systemd and pushed the change. We could have done many different things, but we didn't. > Runit was suggested by users at some point, and I think there is/was a runit implementation in AUR. However, runit was never considered in detail. > First, we don't know if the other systems were really alternatives (at least I don't know). The answer is boring: Systemd solved many problems, it was there, it worked and we already used many of its tools in our initscripts at the time. There is no specific reason why we did not use $WHATEVER over systemd. > About launchd: it was never considered. As I said elsewhere, systemd seemed to do what we want and we went with it.