WHAT? The opinion of users has no weight here ?!?!?!
Popular opinion has no weight. Zero. Technical arguments have weight but most of them have already been debated for ages. There's a strong consensus among the developers (and trusted users / other people who contribute, but that's less important) in support of the status quo. Additionally, if by 'here' you mean arch-general... most developers probably don't subscribe to this list at all. It's used for requesting help and flame wars. I'm quite sure that nothing said in this thread is going to have any impact on Arch's development. There's little else to be said about these topics. It's just a repeat of the same things over and over again and that's exactly why it's not on the radar in terms of development.
I came to Arch because th way it is built and "marketed" looked like a real community and user centric, user centric not to be as easy as pushing a button, but in the way that i can install, configure, and use it the way i want to. Is that real?
It's a community distribution in the sense that the developers aren't paid employees and there's no backing corporation. You can install, configure and use it however you want but the developers are only going to support the use cases they care about. In the base system, there's usually *one* supported option for that component (glibc, libstdc++, libsupc++, coreutils/util-linux, systemd, binutils/gcc, etc.). As a binary distribution, it *has* to make many of these decisions, and others like choosing one init system need to be made to have a polished, maintainable distribution.
If Arch is becoming a personal distribution to attend the developers, so let it clrealy in the website, so we consider choosing a new way. But to realize such an affirmation is a little bit dismotivating at minimum.
It has always been a distribution built around the technical views of the developers. Unlike many other distributions, it doesn't try to appeal to a broad audience. That's what makes it Arch rather than say a distribution like OpenSUSE. There's always room for more contributors, and they'll quickly become trusted users / developers if they're talented and get along with the other developers. The people doing the work are the ones making the decisions, as things usually are in open source projects.
The real POINT here is that, ANY decision made (not only systemd) have its pros and cons, but when someone ask for something different or question that, it is wise to listen, think, and answer in an polite way. Recently i am seeing much rage in talks, i think i will be better, and constructive, to filter better the words so that we can have a kind of a talk.
It's not like this is a technical discussion providing anything positive for the distribution's development. It would be a lot more constructive for everyone to avoid wasting time like this. The constructive thing to do is accepting that Arch isn't a meta distribution like Gentoo. It only supports choice *above* the layer of the base system. You don't get to replace glibc, the toolchain, the core utilities, the init system / core services (i.e. systemd), etc. without venturing into extremely painful unsupported territory. There are *lots* of other distributions, and most settle on either using systemd or not supporting it *at all*, up to the point that unit files are stripped out of packages (as Alpine does).