Sure, there's a good reason. It makes things a lot easier for *them*.
By definition, "they" have to solve all of the same problems you do, and the same problems eevryone else has to who uses it. They have the same learning curve that you do, only they have the challenge of going first, before there are 10 billions hits on google explaining how to fix xyz idiosyncrasy. "They" did not make this decision lightly, as it means just as much work for them as it does for everyone else. "They" made the decision because it was the right decision. There are far too many people I have run into who claim to be Linux zealots who cant handle the DIY aspect of the system. If it bothers you that much, do what I do. wait a while before adopting the latest release. Give them a few months to work out the cruft, and establish all the how-tos for some of the more obscure stuff. In short, let the early adopters do the heavy lifting, and then enjoy the benefits that systemd does provide. Let the people who enjoy being on the bleeding edge do what they do best. In the end, if all the init systems had shown up on the scene at the same time, systemd would have won out hands down. I have seen two arguments against systemd. The first is that it doesn't do XYZ. This *always* turns out to be that it *does* do XYZ, the complainer just didn't know how to find what they were looking for because it had moved from the place they were used to looking for it. The second complaint is that systemd is new, and will have bugs. By that argument, we should have stopped making technological improvements with the invention of the wheel because any new technology will have bugs.