> Of course not. It's an arbitrary line, because the line has to be drawn somewhere. It's not a "line". Some choices are presented to the user, and some aren't

> Of course not. It's an arbitrary line, because the line has to be drawn somewhere. It's not a "line". Some choices are presented to the user, and some aren't. > Most people don't care one way or the other. If that were the case, then great - no-systemd by default. No, the point is that the _people involved with the distribution_ care. > How is leaking internally-facing political issues into the out-of-the-box experience in any way acceptable?! Either people come to an agreement about a default; or they have a fight and split up; or they let the user decide. ... actually, there could be another option, which is a "mixed strategy", i.e. the installer flips a coin instead of asking the user. That could also be a compromise, which doesn't require bother the user. It has its own detriments though.