I get that a lot of folks were traumatised by the shift from init based systems to systemd. However the architecture is sound and relatively straightforward given the inherent complexity in managing a diversity of system processes.

EDITED TO ADD: If you’re looking for a UNIX anti-hero regarding “do one thing and do it well” (that predates systemd), look no further than emacs.

Most of the complexity comes from trying to wrangle uncooperative, poorly written processes. For example, if process descriptors had existed early enough--they came to Linux long after systemd--the ecosystem would have been more sane and systemd and alternatives could have had a more narrow focus.

Linux is now a corporate Unix. Many features exist to support tooling around impenetrable services and applications that can't be modified to behave better. This type of value-add is the bread-and-butter of commercial products and services. But by solving problems in the wrong place you're just adding cruft atop cruft, which hastens bitrot. Starting fresh with saner and thinner applications is how Linux won the Unix wars, but now the ecosystem is recapitulating the same sins.