In this context systems language is difference from having access to the operating system. A systems language lets you write things like device drivers or operating systems.
The only "systems language" is one that an OS with its accompanying device drivers are written in.
Would you consider C a systems language? well, C is useless under a LispOS, for example. Ditto for Java. If you wrote the whole OS in Java, presto, Java would be the language to write device drivers.
IOW, "systems" is a relative term.
You are wrong about Go lacking exceptions. See panic/recover/defer in the spec.
Are these exceptions typed and/or checked?
FWIW, the FAQ itself says it doesn't have proper exception handling:
"Why does Go not have exceptions?"
I am tired of answering questions you can't be bothered answering yourself. It wouldn't bother me so much if you hadn't already formed such strong opinions already. If you're not interested in learning the language, then just be quiet. It's not useful to spread misinformation about something you don't understand.
2) You haven't argued well for the daemon-friendly aspects of Go. Memory footprint is not a valid excuse; I have written daemons in shell-scripts, and they had smaller memory foot print than anything you would write in Ruby or Python, because the shell executable is always resident in memory ;-) In fact, with Go lacking any sort of exception handling mechanism, I think I trust Bash scripts more[1] ;-)
[1] http://linux.die.net/man/1/trap