A backdoor in xz

Though I don't actually believe that claim - I've had plenty of SysV init based systems that were massive pains in the neck to deal with, while the majority of the systemd based systems I've managed have been fairly benign and well behaved, despite doing a whole lot more. Also, the issues I have to deal with generally have nothing to do with systemd, and when they /are/ issues with the unit configuration they've been much easier to resolve than similar issues with init scripts ever were.

Oh, and writing a service targeting a SysV init environment is /far/ more of a pain than writing the same thing targeting a systemd environment - in fact, it's ridiculous how easy it is to target systemd with a basic service. No daemonising, no futzing around with logging targets, no pid files, even the kind of basic intra-service coordination you're pooh-poohing is ridiculously simple. And no mess of spaghetti shell code init script! Most of the time the unit file for a basic service is five or ten lines, and they're simple and declarative with no complex logic - infinitely easier to write and debug. Even when you need to set up complex interdependencies it's generally simple to configure and relatively easy to debug - it can be fiddly, but that's mostly inherent to the problem, rather than an artefact of systemd's implementation.

SysV init worked okay in its day, though it was always a bit of a pain. But it's long /long/ past the time when people should have recognised how much of an improvement systemd is, in pretty much every way. Eulogising the past is all well and good, but actual current performance matters a whole lot more in the real world than sepia-tinted memories of past glories.