I have seen ads for jobs as desktop techs, asking for a masters degree in engineering.
Costco starts out at $20.00 an hour. Walmart truck drivers make $82K a year. I see ads for developers, asking for a degree, and five years experience, for $14 an hour. I see ads for interns that require five years experience.
> For one thing, the POSIX API is there and remains unchanged, and is identical across all Linux variants, not to mention all the BSDs variants. POSIX is the #1 reason to stick with Linux or an open source variant. > All this systemd non-sense?
Those two statements seem contradictory. I think systemd kills POSIX.
1) The only thing that systemd might do faster is boot. Since Linux servers are not booted that often, that is a trifling advantage, at best. Certainly not worth breaking everything that works.
2) Systemd does not always boot faster. Only under certain circumstances.
3) More resource intensive generally means slower on the same hardware. Systemd may boot faster, but it runs slower.
4) There are ways to improve boot speeds without breaking everything that works.
> "Systemd is only an init replacement, nothing more. Nothing to worry about. It's not as if Red Hat is trying to take over Linux or anything. It's not as if this were an embrace-extend-extinguish strategy right out of Microsoft's playbook. It's not as if Red Hat were making Linux less functional and less reliable. Not as if Red Hat is forcing 'standards' that nobody wants (except Red Hat)." Not as if Red Hat is throwing away POSIX, and the UNIX philosophy for no good reason."
I think Red Hat has been working to monopolize Linux. I think it's been going on for years. Systemd was a huge step towards such monopolization.
Red Hat wants to be Microsoft. Who could blame them? Red Hat is imitating Microsoft in many ways. Systemd is open just like OOXML is open. Red Hat is using it's dominate position to push technologies on people who don't want those technologies.
Pottering has made no secret of being a huge fan of the Microsoft way of doing things, and a hater of the traditional UNIX/Linux way of doing things.
It seems to me that, if you are a fan of the way that Linux is going, you would be happier with MS-Windows, or maybe OSX.
Slashdot Mirror
What a disgrace.
> Nichols also thinks coding tools will become powerful enough in the next decade that the demand for actual, dedicated coders will diminish
For those who might not know, this has been predicted for decades.
Here is the cover of PC Magazine, February, 1981:
http://it-careers.pbworks.com/f/1192117231/tlo.gif
I don't remember Linux being difficult to install right before pulseaudio, and networkmanager; and then being easy to install afterwards.
WAY before pulseaudio, Linux may have been difficult to install, for a lot a reasons; but not just before.
Besides, how often do you install an OS? A debian install used to last for years.
> Ubuntu "just works
> Is it perfect? No.
Can't I say the same about Windows, or OSX, or Android, or anything?
Ubuntu used to be a great distro, until that awful Gnome3 distro (10.11?). Going downhill fast since then.
Systemd Will Be Adopted Starting With Linux Mint 18 And LMDE 3
http://linuxg.net/systemd-will-be-adopted-starting-with-linux-mint-18-and-lmde-3/
Still able to avoid that awful crap for another few years.
My brother-in-law quit IT to drive a truck.
Truck drivers can do very well.
I have seen ads for jobs as desktop techs, asking for a masters degree in engineering.
Costco starts out at $20.00 an hour. Walmart truck drivers make $82K a year. I see ads for developers, asking for a degree, and five years experience, for $14 an hour. I see ads for interns that require five years experience.
STEM: Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics
If there is no such evidence, then how does this article make any sense?
Fiorina is completely incompetent and never accomplished anything worthwhile.
Yet she became extremely wealthy, and influential. For reasons I cannot explain, a lot of people still listen to her.
Apple has always been a dickish a company, and Jobs was the worst dick of them all.
That Apple pulled a fast one, on somebody as incapable as Fiorina, is hardly surprising.
> For one thing, the POSIX API is there and remains unchanged, and is identical across all Linux variants, not to mention all the BSDs variants. POSIX is the #1 reason to stick with Linux or an open source variant.
> All this systemd non-sense?
Those two statements seem contradictory. I think systemd kills POSIX.
Well said.
Why is MATE "BULLSHIT?"
Seems to work fine for me.
Maybe not quite as good as Gnome2, but close.
Gnome3 is an abomination.
I can hardly believe they don't have them.
Art imitating life.
1) The only thing that systemd might do faster is boot. Since Linux servers are not booted that often, that is a trifling advantage, at best. Certainly not worth breaking everything that works.
2) Systemd does not always boot faster. Only under certain circumstances.
3) More resource intensive generally means slower on the same hardware. Systemd may boot faster, but it runs slower.
4) There are ways to improve boot speeds without breaking everything that works.
This has been going on for years, and has years more to go. This is a long term strategy.
But why?
Why has Red Hat been replacing standard Linux components with Red Hat components, when the Red Hat stuff is worse?
Why isn't systemd optional? It is just an init replacement, right? Why does Red Hat care which init you use?
Why is systemd being tied to so many other components?
Why binary logging? Who asked for that?
Why throw away POSIX, and the entire UNIX philosophy? Clearly you do not have to do that just to replace init.
Why does Red Hat instantly berate anybody who does not like systemd? Why the barrage of ad hominem attacks systemd critics?
I think there is only one logical answer to all of those questions, and it's glaringly obvious.
Well said.
I think we should get rid of Gnome, and work on MATE, or something like it.
> "Systemd is only an init replacement, nothing more. Nothing to worry about. It's not as if Red Hat is trying to take over Linux or anything. It's not as if this were an embrace-extend-extinguish strategy right out of Microsoft's playbook. It's not as if Red Hat were making Linux less functional and less reliable. Not as if Red Hat is forcing 'standards' that nobody wants (except Red Hat)." Not as if Red Hat is throwing away POSIX, and the UNIX philosophy for no good reason."
Are the red hat shills still posting that?
Anybody still believe that systemd is not about red hat taking over linux?
The systemd OS should not be called Linux. Call it "Red Hat Operating System" or "Pottering OS" or "MS-Windows"
I think Red Hat has been working to monopolize Linux. I think it's been going on for years. Systemd was a huge step towards such monopolization.
Red Hat wants to be Microsoft. Who could blame them? Red Hat is imitating Microsoft in many ways. Systemd is open just like OOXML is open. Red Hat is using it's dominate position to push technologies on people who don't want those technologies.
Pottering has made no secret of being a huge fan of the Microsoft way of doing things, and a hater of the traditional UNIX/Linux way of doing things.
It seems to me that, if you are a fan of the way that Linux is going, you would be happier with MS-Windows, or maybe OSX.
Agree: BSD is a far better server than Linux. More stable, more standard, better engineered.
Also, unlike Linux, BSD is still values POSIX, and UNIX philosophy.
In my experience: Linux is much cheaper to own than Windows.