For me, it's a combination of things:
1. Proper dependency management, where I specify dependencies as they are, rather than flattening the dependency graph.
2. Proper service supervision. I've had upstart lose track of running processes, which is silly - you had one job!
3. Ability to decouple the init system's view of "process is running" from "process is ready/live". This is nice if you want to await liveness by letting the system supervisor tell you if the service is live or not, rather than writing a bunch of external scripts or checks.
4. A single place to modify the way system services are run, and unified config for e.g. resource limits, and tools for working with them.
5. Simple exploration and interleaving of logs from various communicating services via journalctl, which is insanely helpful for debugging things in a distributed system. You can see the calls come in from the network and bounce between services, and see exactly where something goes wrong. You could do this with other solutions, but I get this out of the box with journalctl, and I can look in more detail at any of the services, or when I'm checking a service's status.
It's true that many of these things could perhaps have been done in other ways, but the fact is that the systemd developers did the work to make it happen and now I can focus on my product, rather than on learning a bazillion pieces of plumbing to enable me to ship product. I'm fine adapting a few things to run via unit files instead of shell scripts if it means I can ship more correct and more reliable product in less time.
systemd is not reliable, unlike eg daemontools, the developers are busy adding new features and don't care at all about old bugs. They say if you're not using one of the latest kernels, tough luck. So you're continuously debugging systemd "modern innovations" instead of focusing on your product.
If you're using Ubuntu, let's hope that by the time it gets adopted, systemd has evolved into a functional, dependable component. I wouldn't bet my product on that, though..
What old bugs are you talking about? the only old bugs I can find are fixed or non-systemd bugs that weren't cleaned up
>They say if you're not using one of the latest kernels, tough luck.
Where recent means at least 3.7, or 3.8 if you want Smack support.
>certain problems with systemd will take down the whole system, and make it unbootable too!
>you're continuously debugging systemd "modern innovations" instead of focusing on your product.
[citation needed]
I've been using systemd and systemd user sessions since Arch switched over and the only issues I've come across have been my own fault.
Granted I could choose something better than monit, but then why add another layer to hide brokenness, when we have the capability of doing it correctly in the first place.