It seems to me there only needs to be one init system, otherwise it is a fragmented mess. Windows is gaining fast on Linux in the cloud/server space (SSH support, docker/container support, "Nano Server", more open source components).
Windows has no fragmentation issues in the core system.
Whether it is Systemd or System XVI im not really that bothered. Something needs to be decided fast however, and Systemd has a big head start.
I just hope it dosen't end up like the KDE/Gnome mess.
The mere existence of alternatives doesn't suddenly transform you from "unified utopia" to "fragmented dystopian hellhole".
Windows isn't gaining anything on the demographics that use GNU/Linux for cloud deployments. You're reading too many articles on HN and extrapolating that Windows must be curb stomping its competition because of some smart business decisions on part of Nadella and co. You're further making the assumption that Linux needs to compete with Windows. It doesn't.
It's not that there is fragmentation, so much as the problem space is quite open-ended and there are multiple solutions. Forcing a square peg into a round hole (systemd ueber alles) is a recipe for impedance mismatch and stagnation, not unification.
How are those things nonsense?
Are we really going to spend lots of energy the next n years discussing the best init system?
Why the hell shouldn't we?
Isn't this a pretty simple and solved problem by now?
Nope. It's actually a very hard problem with little in the way of complete solutions. Take your ignorant trolling elsewhere, please.