Those are some pretty strong words… You are one of the very few people who seem to be genuinely enthusiastic about systemd. 
Most people, myself included, just tolerate systemd: “It’s not THAT bad…”
(it’s actually pretty bad, though, bloated and monolithic, contrary to UNIX philosophy… but it does what it’s supposed to do, it’s easy to configure, and it’s not something to lose sleep over…)
I would not call it enthusiastic, but I definitely appreciate the advantages compared to sysvinit.
Things can always be improved.
I definitely call it progress if one can control different aspects of a machine with kind of standardized syntax/interface (systemctl, bluetoothctl, …).
No more messing around with dozens of config files you have to dig for and then have to edit manually.
Then you must also think that mac and windoze are progress…
I am not denying the advantages of using systemd, it’s really user-friendly. But I believe it is the wrong direction to take. I would prefer more modularity, thousands of small programs working together (preferably following a common standard) instead of a monolithic mess that is systemd. I don’t think any program should have over a million lines of code, especially not a core component like an init system.
But the same can be said of the Linux kernel, and we are all here using it, so… It’s fine, I guess…
This statement, at least according to my understanding, implies that every aspect of Mac and M$ are crap. One can certainly be of that opinion. I’m of a different one.
I am not sure I agree with this statement.
If we are talking about server administrators, life has become a lot easier for system administrators since the advent of systemd.
It used to be that every time you connected to a Linux server you had to try to figure out how that particular distro handled systems and service management. Everyone was doing it differently. It even changed with different versions of each distro. Now, I can sit down in front of any of the major distros and can find my way around quickly.
On top of that, systemd keeps centralizing things making them easier to manage.
If we are talking about desktop users, I would bet the majority of them don’t even know what systemd is.
Well, we could come up with standard syntax to overcome such problem and still use different stuff to actually manage those commands…You know, less bloated, more modular, etc
Kinda like XDG stuff, but better 
Actually, we still kinda can do that…by just following systemd syntax and make it a standard - everyone seem to like it.
It isn’t just about having a common set of commands. It is about having it work the same way across systems. If you look at other alternatives, the all work differently, not only in how you interact with them but in what they do and how they do it.
Yeah but that’s what i meant by standard:
Now obviously it’s nothing like it, coz there is no standard of syntax / outcomes for various reasons 
In many ways comprehensive standards are at odds with the spirit of open-source development.
Open source developers are often doing things because they see a need and have a desire to make it a reality. Because they are often doing it on there own time, they do it in the way they see fit and typically believe they are improving on what already exists. That is why we have 412,359 AUR helpers.
That should be 412,360, errr…61, no wait 62…
It’s not very correct to compare 412,361 AUR helpers to core system components, but whatever