I personally came at systemd without a preconceived notion that it was wrong or a failure and instead read the design docs and was excited. It also helps that many years ago the team I was with gave up on sysvinit and unmanaged daemons and tried to only run services under daemontools.
I don't understand all this hostility at all, except as the standard resistance to change regardless of the merits of the change. No-one is even using sysvinit anymore for the purposes that it was developed, services have shell scripts that start them and "daemonize" by default rather than adding new daemons to /etc/inittab and letting init monitor/restart the processes. sysvinit failed when run-parts and other tools were developed to work around its inadequacies.
I just don't see how one could come to the impression that this is not a professional and thoughtfully put together project after reading all of the long systemd for administrators blog posts that were highlighted by LWN when they came out. I'm not sure how one can be blind to the inadequacies of the old sysvinit system and not see the benefits of other systems such as Upstart, daemontools, runit, etc. I'm not sure why it's bad to comprehensively deal with user and service session management, i'm not even sure that it's wrong to use modern kernel features to do so.