My biggest sources of dissatisfaction with systemd are not really addressed in this article.
1) systemd is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist for me. I've been using Linux in server, PC, embedded setup since 1995 and never in my life I have experienced a situation where I couldn't implement something by modifying existing SysV-based based setup. I'm not alone, I heard similar sentiments from others. Yeah, boot time is a bit better. I don't care, my systems have months and years of uptime.
2) Entire SysV based boot can be understood on the spot by reading the code of the scripts. Compared to this, systemd is a black box, to fully understand its internals you have to go outside the command line: hunt for the docs on the Web, download the source code.
3) systemd makes the boot process non-linear and complex to comprehend and predict. I cannot easily see the boot process visually as it is happening and I have to rely on external utilities to understand the order in which everything will be started. With systemd, I get a feeling that I'm booting Windows - I don't have a feeling that I'm in control anymore.
4) systemd is more difficult to troubleshoot. Starting a SysV script, I get output and errors straightaway on the screen. With systemd, at best this information is hidden somewhere in the logs which I have to hunt for.
5) systemd has a steep learning curve. There are lots of config files and interaction between them is not obvious. It'll be quite difficult to explain it to a junior system administrator.
PS: My experiences are based on FC16. Perhaps these issues have been addressed in newer Fedora releases - I'll be happy to hear about that.