1) the unholy shitpile of init scripts was only a problem because the desktop guys who wrote the particular shitpile in question had no idea what they were doing. BSD is proof that you can write clean, sensible init scripts.
2) "which shows how young they are" -- what in particular is your issue with older, more experienced people, and how is that a problem enough for you to call it out?
> BSD is proof that you can write clean, sensible init scripts.
Which, it turns out, are wholly underwhelming for many things people now want their init system doing. Hence launchd, SMF, and Jordan Hubbard's interest in an equivalent. But I guess the BSD developers working on the former and latter don't know what they're doing either, right?
> what in particular is your issue with older, more experienced people
I'm sorry you're struggling to read, but it's quite the opposite: anyone around long enough knows SysVisms were derided widely when they were introduced.
An interest that one guy has is not evidence of the inability of many others to have written clean, sensible init scripts for several decades; which, as point of actual fact in this real world in which we actually really both exist, they have.
Shitty init scripts and the path to systemd have been self-inflicted wounds caused by a tiny group of inexperienced desktop developers. Such is life when you live in a local minima caused by your own incompetence, I suppose; even terrible, tasteless directions look like improvements.
2) "which shows how young they are" -- what in particular is your issue with older, more experienced people, and how is that a problem enough for you to call it out?