I believe that people will start pushing attacks once the popularity of sytemd goes up. Why attack something that's not as widely used as sysvinit?
I don't think that the argument was that it was scary to upgrade or there were no benefits; the author was specifically stating that a couple of points inherent to the design of systemd make it something that he finds less stable. Systemd could still provide these benefits by shipping more than one binary for extra features, reducing the attack surface of the init system itself.
EDIT: BTW I use archlinux and therefore use systemd.
I don't think that the argument was that it was scary to upgrade or there were no benefits; the author was specifically stating that a couple of points inherent to the design of systemd make it something that he finds less stable. Systemd could still provide these benefits by shipping more than one binary for extra features, reducing the attack surface of the init system itself.
EDIT: BTW I use archlinux and therefore use systemd.