I fixed aitor's link and it works now.

Thanks

There's always the wayback archive

I fixed it.  It was missing the final "l" in the html.  Might have been just htm at the time. I fixed aitor's link and it works now. Takes me back almost 10 years when the debate was raging . . .

There were other excellent critiques written at the time. I remember one by Jude Nelson in particular but it all fell on deaf ears.

This one:

Systemd: The Biggest Fallacies (by Jude C. Nelson)

I bumped into this the other day and found it to be the best and most level-headed criticism of systemd I've yet seen:
http://landley.net/notes-2014.html#23-04-2014
It's worth reading.

There were other excellent critiques written at the time. I remember one by Jude Nelson in particular but it all fell on deaf ears. The Debian GR vote put the nail in the coffin of init diversity in Debian. For those of you who weren't here to  live through it, the following analyses are "required reading":

Combatting revisionist history by dasein on the Debian forum
Open letter to the Linux World by Christoper Barry on the LKML.

Bottomline:
    Linux-based OSes have always been modular--built of interchangeable components (with the exception of the kernel, which gets a pass because it defines these OSes). This allows for a lot of flexibility and is the reason why tinkerers find Linux attractive.
    BusyBox and systemd are, in a way, good twin and evil twin: Both are monolithic userspaces, but while BusyBox goes out of its way to respect modularity (user can enable all, none, or any subset of its functionality; it can coexist with tools that provide similar functionality), systemd does the opposite.