"I see a lot of people throwing around terms like 'Unix way' and things like that, but I don't see it. I don't see it at all."
The complaint is that systemd doesn't just take over for the old init system. It's also taking over for the old inetd, udev, syslog, and probably others. The "Unix" way is not to try to do too much in one subsystem or process, so this consolidation makes people nervous.
"The scripts and commands that I use to managing the start up of processes is different from Redhat to Debian. They are also different from what FreeBSD and OpenBSD use and they are different then what I see in Solaris. All of it it is very different."
I've run all of those systems, plus Ubuntu and some others (both Linux and commercial Unix) better forgotten, in the last 15+ years, and all but the BSDs have let me do "/etc/init.d/foo start" and "/etc/init.d/foo stop" to control daemons. (Since the advent of upstart, Ubuntu complains about it, but still does it.) And all but the BSDs have allowed basically the same procedure for making a daemon start on bootup (which minor variations in directory structure and runlevel definitions). All of it is very similar.
"I mean when Perl came out did people complain that it wasn't 'Unix'."
Actually people did, a bit. Ever heard the term "Swiss army chainsaw"? But they still used it. Eventually Perl embraced modularity, however, as have its many successors.
From my perspective, it seems like systemd is being pushed before it's widely considered ready to take over such fundamental tasks. Wayland is not yet being pushed, and seems to be trying to address the concerns first. Of course, Wayland has an advantage of trying to replace something that was already trying to do too much, and possibly even reducing the scope slightly.