Yes, because when a well-understood, imperfect, but robust system is FORCIBLY replaced with a brittle, fragile, overly complicated, MORE IMPERFECT system which, which immediately commandeers cgroups for itself so that cgroups is unavailable for apps, and which fails to even meet a single one of its publicly announced design goals, run by a software team whose answer to anything is "you people suck!" and "you haven't read the 1000 pages of documentation" and "I'm not breaking things --- EVERYONE ELSE'S PROGRAMS ARE BROKEN! NOT MINE! NEENER NEENER NEENER!", yes, indeed, the response IS predictable.
Why would the response to this steaming pile of s h i t be any different? Why SHOULD it be any different.
A replacement for SysVInit should be an IMPROVEMENT, not shoehorning some Frankenstein's Monster sort of C:\Windows\svchost.exe into Linux
If you can't see the myriad problems with systemd, and don't understand how systemd is a step backwards on the level of going to the pre-MULTICS days of OS/360, then you're either too wet behind the ears to appreciate what's actually going on, or too stupid to ever comprehend what's really going on.