Oh, you mean besides the paradigm shift from something that is perfectly suitable for desktop users to something that benefits tablets and other similar devices the most?

Who doesn't, also great job on the part of the original author for showing that there are things other than bash, which can be used to write an init script, enough to inspire me to try writing a few in Python;)
But really I personally have never seen much need for socket activation, I'd rather waste a few mb of ram than a few more seconds of CPU and i/o time if I wish to print something or to use ssh, and as pointed out xinetd could handle that.
It is even less relevant on servers, where you could have hundreds of GB or even a few TB of ram, and in any case they should be dedicated for one application only, not running the whole enterprise, ad what is true for physical systems is also true for VMs IMO, even considering the extra penalty most forms of virtualization incur.

It think a lot of people get put-off by SystemV due to the fact it requires so much scripting work, and few people want to take the small amount of time to learn scripting.

SystemV is far from being broken, messy, mangled, or outdated. SystemV works plain and simple, and learning scripting properly is only limited by one's ability to do the most basic of tasks in GNU/Linux that people still don't seem to grasp...

Read the documentation!

OpenRC, BSDInit, RunIt, s6, daemontools, and other replacement init systems all use scripting on some level, same as SysVinit.

The only issue is getting lazy admins to actually open up a document and read the bloody thing. Not to kick a dead horse but read Lennart's entire manifesto on why he feels SysVInit is outdated... It all stems from laziness and an unwillingness to properly read documentation.

I can't quite follow that logic. Due to being too lazy to write scripts or even read documentation this man does not only write a whole new init system from scratch, he also documents that new init system extensively and later extends it to the goal of becoming what he calls the "CoreOS"?

Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense. If there is one thing that you can't blame Poettering for it is laziness.

Laziness can come in varied forms though, so technically, Lennart might be a good software developer, but in terms of writing scripts and other configuration files he might be lazy in those aspects only. Remember this guy does have an ego so he could be one of those software developers that thinks he's too good and above the need to learn to write scripts.

However, then again Lennart's logic doesn't make too much sense either into why we need what has already been done in modular form, that he wants to do in monolithic form.

Ah, this again. systemd is not monolithic, as you can see for example in bartgymnasts effort to port it to Slackware, where he uses only the minimum he deems to be acceptable of systemd, not using the other modules.

This is relative. It could also mean "We are all so deep buried in the windowzy desktop paradigm and used to it that we can't possibly move on to something better". Gnome3 is actually neat, go try it for some time.
It's similar to arguing that KDE4 is oh-so tablet oriented because it allows you to put silly widgets on your desktop, just like Android does.

I hope you plan to join the Debian mailing lists soon, to refute all the arguments about "sysV is crap, there are much better alternatives". You obviously know something their Technical Comittee (such a band of lazy wankers, too lazy to write bash scripts) don't.

Actually systemd is monolithic by design even though it has various subsystems that act modular. Don't let the design fool you. Even though Bart was able to isolate out various components for Slackware and LFS was able to work out where udev and gudev subsystems can be extracted out individually, the problem is the core of systemd, when built, takes over and creates a foundation that everything then must compile into, and then it becomes a core dependency within the system for various other systems. Once this is built, systemd is no longer truly modular. It becomes a single system set with various components all working off a core foundation. Monolithic doesn't just have to mean it compiles into a single package file like the Linux kernel. Monolithic can extend to individual programs that work off a single core entity.

Even FreeBSD could be considered monolithic in terms of an OS. FreeBSD software is designed to where it will only work with FreeBSD, not any other system.

The whole Debian init Debate for dummies (with sound, pictures, interaction and other geeky fun stuff):
http://aceattorney.sparklin.org/jeu.php?id_proces=57684

... please stop derailing this topic in yet an other anti-systemd rant.

Haha, this is great! Pretty long too, must have been a lot of work.

Debating an init system like systemd is going to spark controversy. It's happened with EVERY topic on it. Just face the fact that hardly any Linux admin with common sense towards properly doing things is going to say "systemd is the best thing since the wheel was invented".

Edit:

The best solution we can hope for is one where other init systems are entirely optional, or we are given choices of init systems that can be supportive to sysvinit rather than destructive.

Example: RunIt can be ran alongside sysvinit as a daemon service supervisor as shown here from it's documentation page, without replacing sysvinit, upstart, bsdinit, or even launchd:

http://smarden.org/runit/useinit.html

That other software uses the APIs systemd is exposing does not change the status of systemd being modular. If you read bartgymnast's page about systemd without PAM on Slackware you will see that exactly one package, dbus, has to be recompiled, nothing else. Also, as you can see in the thread about that topic and acknowledged by you, bartgymnast uses only hostnamed, machined, timedated and journald, but none of the other modules. That should be prove enough that systemd is modular.

Learn to read, I clearly stated that I did try that stupid bloat and did not like it, and FYI I rather like FluxBox, so there is your retarded argument about Windows dependant mentallity.

Ah, a clear attempt to get out of actually answering a valid question/not debating by talking smack, begone troll.
Also I propose that anyone on any Debian technical panel that has been affiliated with either Fedora or Ubuntu be told to shove off and stop forcing Debian to copy other distros' solutions.

Funny, neither Fedora (or FWIW systemd) developers nor Upstart developers started that discussion, it was actually caused by Gnome 3 depending on logind, which in versions >204 needs systemd as PID1. By the way, you forgot the Gentoo developers with their OpenRC in that list of people trying to force Debian to use their init system.

Oh, and how many OpenRC developers are actually on the panel, or on any Debian technical panel for that matter?
In addition, I really don't give a rat's ass about Gnome 3's prerequisites, IMO the only prerequisite a stupid GUI should have is for X(Or Wailand, or Mir, when they are actually ready for wide use) and the appropriate GTK libs to be installed, it shouldn't even even have to come with crap like D-Bus, udisks, or the various *kits as dependencies.

As far as I am concerned the GUI is nothing more than nice window-dressing for lazy people a lot of the time.
I need it for actual administrative tasks, writing code, building various essential applications or managing files, users, etc. as much as a monkey needs a golf club, moreover a lot of those tasks are actually considerably faster of done via CLI.
Hell there are even a number of pretty nice music players for the console, I only need to use runlevel 5 if I am watching a movie , surfing the web, testing html/css/js crap, using some IMs, or viewing or editing some types documents.
netBeans, Bluefish, Geany and Eclipse are all nice, but vi with some plugins(or EMACS if you are a pervert) works pretty damned well, thank you.

Also, GNOME3 is still a slow, ugly, uncomfortabe piece of trash written by retards, if I had to choose between it and Windows 8 I would just use Windows 8.