Most of systemd's critics are not people that just want to use another init system. They object to it on stupid philosophical grounds for which they should be shamed.
Most of systemd's proponents are not people that care about what service management system they use. They defend systemd despite their ignorance of both systemd and the proposed alternatives solely to feel part of the "in group" of people who moan about people who moan about systemd.
People who defend systemd do so because they want their system to work reliably and quickly. It does that. Before you say "so does sysvinit", no it does not. It was janky-but-workable on servers and desktops in the 90s, that basically never did anything except startup and shutdown. Most modern computers aren't like that.
More straw man arguments. You have just confirmed that you have _no idea_ what alternatives exist, that you have _no idea_ what systemd actually does, and you have _no idea_ what my actual stance is in this discussion.
Please don't insult me by insinuating that I think that sysvinit is anything other than a weird esoteric init program which has, in the past and on linux distros, been the supporting piece of a garbage heap of poorly written shell scripts (and which is currently on BSDs the supporting piece of a relatively okay designed heap of shell scripts which implement a silly service management model that I also don't like).
