Wow, so much FUD in this thread, just like all the threads in the arch-general mailing list.
A. You can still use rc.conf, some of the Arch devs have worked hard to make their systemd be able to read the DAEMONS array so no changes necessary, though they are recommended to match upstreadm.
B. The main selling point of systemd is not speed, though it is much faster. The reason the devs are all so eager to switch is because systemd service files are MUCH easier to write than initscripts. Not only are they much faster to write but they're portable so the hope is upstream will eventually be able to maintain their own service files and the devs jobs will be much easier. People do things that make their lives easier - surprise!
C. They didn't force you to install systemd, systemd-tools is a collection of small binaries which are useful to any init system - Arch's initscripts make heavy use of them. AFAIK they're still not forcing you, but it will be default and they probably will force you eventually.
Thank You. I was wondering why switch from initscripts to systemd if the old method wasn't broken. Your post, seems to indicate the major advantage of switching to systemd is simplification of the boot process. I guess if thats true, then thats as good a reason as any to switch to systemd. I just hope thats the real reason the switch is being made.
5. I don't even understand what the hell you are trying to say here...
He's saying that his issues with systemd are purely emotional. That's why there's no technical argument anywhere in that quoted post. This is probably also true for 99 percent of all the other criticism voiced in connection with systemd on websites.
The real arguments are generally brought up on systemd-devel and discussed by people who have some idea what they're talking about. So far, I've never read anything on that list along the lines of systemd being a broken concept. So I'd say there isn't that much to worry about. (The non-portability argument is not even worth discussing, since open code is inherently portable.)
I just hope thats the real reason the switch is being made.
Why wouldn't it be? It also eases up the maintenance of other packages by absolving them from things like ck. Tomegun also brought up some points in the forum, as well as Allan in his "Are We Removing What Defines Arch Linux?" blog post.