What init system would you prefer to use under GhostBSD?

I can see the merits of both, and so this is difficult - an ideal situation would be to keep things as they are why put the devs through work that doesn't neec to be done? , but a pragmatic approach would be to go back to the FreeBSD init, as you know it's going to be around for a long time and it's more familiar...

I would track whatever FreeBSD is planning to do as close as possible. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is zero effort, long term compatible improvements. 

Feel free to soften the above. Low effort, likely long term compatible, etc :-) 

YMMV

I had stopped using GhostBSD a few years ago when they moved to OpenR, and I had started roling my own FreeBSD desktop ever since,  It's unlikly I would return to GhostBSD regardless of what decision is made.  I'm quite happy with my pure FreeBSD desktop, but moving back to rc.d would at least allow me to start reconsidoring GhostBSD for some projects.

Personally, I like that GhostBSD uses OpenRC, because it allows broader testing, and has shown that it works really well, adding strength to the debate for FreeBSD to make the switch.

I presume you switched to OpenRC for good reasons like paralleled performance and easier management.
I presume the FreeBSD project uses RC for conservative reasons and stability of "the way things work".

I would love for FreeBSD to adapt OpenRC too.

I voted for RC to free developer resources and make GhostBSD come closer to FreeBSD.
Should the project happen to fail users should be able to switch over to the mothership.

2 cents...

FreeBSD uses init.d, yes, and it works.   TrueOS uses OpenRC, and it works great.  Now, my understanding is that GhostBSD tracks TrueOS... and so uses OpenRC because of that.  I voted for init.d, but then thought about the problems of a developer having to remove the working init system to replace with one they comittee likes... bleah!

Eric, use the init system you like.  You built GhostBSD as a system you enjoy... and give it out in hopes other will like it too!  I'd ask that you keep making stuff that makes you happy, and we'll use it or not.  Making minute changes that appear as steps backwards (to you) will only decrease you interest in working on this fantastic desktop - and I for one don't want that!  This is an excellent system, and if the only complaint is the init system... well, that's a very minor issue.  My desktop doesn't need to behave exactly as my servers do... lol, for people to give up on a system because it uses a different set of commands to perform similar functions, well too bad.

have a good day!

Sttay true to the principles that drove the hard decisions that helped define Freebsd and leave a shine   of resillience  (systemd for example).

Stay true to this and we'll stay true to you, forever!  ~ Vote1 rc.d

I prefer to use OPENRc which has been more flexible than the counterpart for my tree service work.

I am one those users that has known Linux since it's early Ubuntu days, and slowly found my way into BSD. I have used so many distros that I have los count. Some of them have what is now the stardard for Linux systemd and others have OpenRC, runit, and s6. All of them work and do things differently yes, however when it comes down as long as the users and developers agree, there should really be no difference. It's like liking Apple Juice over Orange Juice they are both still juices.

I honestly don't feel that changing the init to FreeBSD RC (rc.d) will benefit what GhostBSD is as whole; sure it can be more "pure" and what not, but at the end of the day I like GhostBSD becuase it's a great Unix-like system that does and runs how a Unix-l;ike system should. I stopped using it for a while because my old main machne specifically didn't work with it not because of it's init. My new machine has been running it perfectly for months. 

Have a good day!