If I may read between the lines here, and please take this constructively, you seem a bit disgruntled because you were an early Julia adopter and things have changed rapidly—more rapidly than you feel comfortable with. Julia 1.0 was released faster than you would have liked, and contained one change that you really didn’t care for—global scope behavior. Packages that you grew fond of, such as Winston, have been abandoned—for years now. Why not switch to one of the many excellent, actively maintained plotting packages instead of remaining unhappy about Winston’s lack of maintenance?
The global scope “debacle” was so-called by @jeff.bezanson himself in his typical, charmingly self-deprecating style, recognizing that many people—but not all of them, and perhaps not even most—are vocally unhappy about it. Frankly, if that’s the only thing people have to complain about in 1.0—which seems very close to being the case—then we really stuck the landing. Given the number of very hard decisions that went into the 1.0 release, getting only one thing wrong is a spectacular track record. There’s a proposed solution for global scope, which we’re not rushing out the door because botching the fix would be worse than not fixing what many people have argued not to be a mistake in the first place.
The package ecosystem is now largely recovered, which is pretty impressive given the extremely short time frame. As @ssfrr has already said, I don’t think that would have happened without lighting the fire under the proverbial asses of package developers by putting 1.0 out there when we did.
I agree that package search and discovery remains an issue. The https://pkg.julialang.org page is abandoned because the person who created and maintained it decided it was no longer something they wanted to maintain. Julia Observer is unofficial, and while Dan has done a great job with it, I worry that it also has a bus factor of one. What we need is a solution which guarantees active and ongoing support and maintenance. We do have a plan, which is under active development, so bear with us on the package search front. In the meantime, the version bounds in the General registry are accurate: if you want to know what’s compatible with Julia 1.0, it’s all in there. The biggest remaining usability problem is that the Pkg version resolver gives pretty inscrutable errors when no compatible versions exist. That too will be improved in the near future.
Taking a step back, I’d like to encourage you to change your perspective. Rather than looking back and being annoyed by things you grew used as a very early Julia adopter which have changed or broken, instead look forward. The era of uncomfortably rapid change is over: the things that work well in Julia now are going to continue working—we guarantee it. We have also successfully made the transition from an old, traditional style package manager that gave no real ability to separate projects, snapshot or reproduce work, or have multiple public and private registries, to a new package manager that was designed to do all of those things and do them well. It hasn’t been a painless transition by any means, nor is it complete—package users are living in the promised land, but package developers are still awkwardly straddling the old and new worlds (but not for long).
From where I’m standing, the future looks very bright. Come join me up here 
. Thank you for all your past and present support and evangelization of Julia.