FreeBSD is looking closely at systemd. While it is agreed it isn't the right solution to the problem, it is also agreed it solves a problem that init scripts cannot solve. Systemd as is will not (for legal reasons) ever be in freebsd, but don't be surprised if FreeBSD writes their own semi-clone that does most of the same things and implements a good part of the interface. I suspect if debian will drop systemd for the freebsd replacement a few years after it is released.
I like BSD-style init scripts; they are easy to work with and understand. I dislike this trend that systemd started. Pretty soon, everything will be a binary blob. This is one of the reasons I love OpenBSD--no binary blobs. OpenBSD runs great on most laptops with a few issues, but for the most part, I've had great success. It's very stable, easy to learn and use, and more importantly, secure. I want for nothing using it. And I show my age when people see I still run WindowMaker as my preferred DE.
People use systemd because it solves real problems that are not adequately solved by init scripts. Your "want for nothing" says more about your limited needs (which is fine) than anything else about system management services.
Regardless of one's opinions or critiques about the implementation of systemd specifically, the idea that it came up in some kind of vacuum or started a "trend" is utterly ridiculous.
Prior art in UNIX would be SMF at a minimum, and systemd clearly looked at launchd for some inspiration in other areas (systemd ended up having the goal of covering both use cases of launchd and SMF.. ie generally server and desktop).
Also what is this about binary blobs? systemd is configured with text files. Last I checked, the init process itself on BSD is a binary.
In BSD, the init(8) binary doesn't do much regarding startup - basically just executes /etc/rc; it's shell scripts all the way afterwards, nothing hardcoded.
What exactly cannot be solved with init scripts?
Also, keep in mind that FreeBSD init scripts (which actually come from NetBSD as rcng) are very different from the SysV mess Linux used to use - they handle dependencies, have a sane way of configuring way, they don't reimplement features which ceased being useful in the eighties (runlevels) etc. They are also quite fast. This means the pressure to migrate off to something else is much lower.
There are things to like about init scripts. That is why freeBSD hasn't jumped in and created a systemd like replacement. However systemd as an approach to starting services has some significant advantages and that FreeBSD wants. Smart people are thinking hard about the problem in hopes they can come up with a good compromise.
