Earlier quoted context omitted.
systemd is a perfectly fine init system. The problem is that it comes bundled with a whole bunch of other tools for handling networks, cron, ntp, etc which really ought to be separate projects. By bundling them with the successful init system they're not exposed to the usual Darwinian selection processes that shake out the best free software.
They're separate binaries, and can be easily unbundled. That they're part of the same project is actually a win for me, it helps to make the various components work well together. Also there is a common thread or philosophy in how things are built, making learning easier. In fact "the system is a single project" approach reminds me of the BSDs, which is arguably better than Linux as far as usability and security is c…
I've had this thought as well. The BSDs aren't afraid to go off and do their own thing, and it works for them. I feel like generally the Linux ecosystem is held back by reluctance to break free from ancient conventions and standards like POSIX and such, so I come into this systemd debate skeptical of arguments that it's not "the UNIX way" or that it's too Linux-specific or that it's stepping on other projects' toes, or that it's not the way things have been done before.
The systemd critics have legitimate criticisms which can be addressed through evolutionary improvements, but I don't buy the philosophical arguments that systemd is fundamentally flawed.