So talk about that divide. Clearly a lot of people care a lot about Sysemd and want to talk about it. It's even the title of the post.
Complaining that people aren't having the conversation you want to have is just weird. Start the conversation you want instead of complaining that others are failing to have it. No one is obliged to hold the conversation you want.
I came here to learn about a technical issue that HN felt worthy of the front page, because I'm not certain how I feel about systemd yet. I ended up learning what a bunch of people feel about systemd, but nothing about whether this is a reasonable divide strategy, or whether anyone has any arguments to counter his, or .. anything whatsoever. I'm glad the thread benefited the wellness of the community by providing an outlet for unresolved rage, but y'all missed a key opportunity here to consider a new semantic about the Kernel-Init(Systemd) interaction before it's fixed into stone by commits or whatever.
Was the title different when you clicked on this story? If you clicked a story about how Linus no longer trusts init and expected some deep discussion of init/kernel separation, I kind of feel like you were destined to be disappointed. The topic was clearly Linus's distrust of init, not architectural purity.
The suckless community maintains a page about SystemD's flaws (Why it "sucks"), and what they think an init system should do, and what it shouldn't. It's a relatively concise summary of the position of the people opposed to SystemD: http://suckless.org/sucks/systemd
So far I haven't found a page like this by the SystemD advocates. I haven't really found much of an argument by them, to be quite honest. It would be nice to hear of one, of course.
Complaining that people aren't having the conversation you want to have is just weird. Start the conversation you want instead of complaining that others are failing to have it. No one is obliged to hold the conversation you want.