[notriddle]

> systemd-or-not is not "every single theoretically possible option"

Of course not. It's an arbitrary line, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.

> It is a highly contentious and political issue.

Most people don't care one way or the other.

> If the systemd proponents would have accepted defaulting to no-systemd, then great, no need for the choice; but realistically, both sides are somewhat adamant, so making the user choose is a reasonable compromise IMHO.

How is leaking internally-facing political issues into the out-of-the-box experience in any way acceptable?!

It's an almost perfect reflection of exactly the reason Joel On Software hates prompting people up-front with configuration options; by refusing to pick a reasonable default, the small number of people who actually care one way or the other are forcing everyone else to deal with their baggage. First-time Debian users completely lack the context to make such a choice, and anyone who does care knows where to look for information on how to switch over a system after it's installed.

[einpoklum]

> 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.