This would be valid if you could find people of a specific religious or spiritual belief who came to it without ever having come in contact with anyone teaching it to them before they came to it. But that does not happen. All these "subjective experiences" only serve to lead someone to a belief they have been taught about.
And yes, some people are charismatic enough to lead other people into believing they share their experience and vision. That happens in religion, state cults and various other situations, and is excellent evidence against any kind of real divinity behind religious experiences.
No; I do not believe in an expert. I believe in a series of experts independently replicating the experiment and coming up with generally compatible results.
As opposed to holy books, which diverge to such a tremendous degree that not even different sects in the same general religion can agree. If holy books were right there would be no need for missionaries; they would encounter people already holding a belief similar to their own. That they do not, that people who make up mythical explanations all come up with different ones, is very strong evidence that they are in fact simply made up.
In the case of judeochristianity the whole chain of making it up from a minor deity in the Babylonian mythos is well understood, and there exists no reason to consider it anything but a myth to keep a tribe together during difficult times.
Could you provide some of those sources of verification please? The only ones I know of are:
Josephus, in which reference to Jesus were added centuries after the fact by monk scribes.
Tacitus, who recites what he has been told by early Christians.
Suetonius, who speaks of someone in Rome. If that is Jesus, everyone is wrong.
Thallus, the works of which are lost, and the alleged writings of which does not match any other historical records.
Pliny the Younger, who verifies that Christians exist, but says nothing about Jesus.
If there are others, and I would expect there are given your very forceful statement, please provide some insight. I am most curious to learn about them!
You only need to know assembly when writing C if you're trying to squeeze the performance of the code down to the point where every saved instruction makes a difference. And then you'll be embedding assembly anyway. This is a concern in a very narrow subset of an in turn small subset of software.
And that is why no-one is using Fortran, Scheme, COBOL, SQL, C, C++, bash, or countless other technologies today to develop bleeding edge systems. They're just too old and well documented and understood to build anything in these days!
The problem is that systemd should not do what it does to the startup process. It's taking over *everything*, and the stated reason by the lead developer is to force Linux to behave as he wants it to.
It should not mount. It should not log. It should not handle network connections. It should not automount. Those are not init tasks. Those are specialized tasks which should be performed by specialized tools.
Actually DRM achieves a negative, as it drives many people who get burned by DRM to instead use alternative sources of content. Imperfect security *can* be worse than no security, depending on the circumstance.
Sure, your parents would not bother to learn how to use bittorrent, but they also would not bother to learn how to use netflix, or any other such service. Thus they are a non-issue when it comes to DRM; they just go buy something to watch, like most people do. To them it may as well not exist, as they bought a DVD player and then buy DVD's, and if they are DRM'd or not makes zero difference to them.
The ones that have an interest in new or hard to find content and have the motivation to learn about and use streaming and other such technology are the ones that get harmed by DRM, and who also have no problem finding alternative sources. Those are the ones that DRM drives away, and that is where the net loss occurs.
There is no assumption that it was easier for them to migrate to Linux than to Vista in that sentence. In fact, there was no mention of Vista anywhere at all in my comments. I've never performed a migration to Vista, only to various Linux variants, to Windows NT 4, Windows 2000, XP and Windows 7, so I most definitely have made no assumptions or conclusions about migration to Vista. It is nothing I have ever considered or paid any attention to, nor will I do so.
You seem quite confused. Perhaps you're mixing up what I wrote with what you think (or wish) I wrote.
You keep asserting I made assumptions. I did not. I performed this switch, multiple times. My answer is rooted in real world experience, just as yours is.
I'm sure that every time someone has a different experience than yours it must be wrong!;)
I'm sure you were careful. Most people trying for a switch like this are. But your results speak for themselves; careful or not, you did not have the required knowledge to make the transition to Linux easy for experienced users.
I've eased people into Linux in many roles and at multiple times since the last millenium. It's become a lot easier more recently. In the last few years it has become so easy that it's pretty much just pointing out a few differences and off they go. Quite interesting. 5-10 years ago it was harder, and before that nearly impossible.
You have personal anecdotes, I have personal anecdotes. That is what it is.
Anecdotes are just that. Anecdotes. But most people who know office well do not work nearly as fast or efficient with the ribbon infested new versions. And if you had selected a UI closer to that of XP instead of whatever you picked things would have gone much smoother.
Having done this personally I have to point out that you're wrong. It is trivial to move people from XP to Linux. Moving them to Windows 7 was far more difficult. Did this last year. Ironically, the people who had the most difficult time with Windows 7 were the people who were most comfortable with a computer.
And this is what systemd should be doing. Not running udev on its own, and mounting file systems, and handling network connections, and $DEITY knows what else garbage it's stuffing in its bloated chunk of API rot.
If systemd did init, and did it well, and did nothing else, it would be embraced by pretty much everyone who was sane. What it does now makes me wonder the sanity of anyone who embraces it.
And I wish people who think that change is good just because it's change would have to deal with the real world consequences of such a foolish attitude.
That one does no debunking. Please, link some that does? As it stands I see no reason to discount the ewontfix article as it makes sense, and the link you provided does not.
What makes systemd monolithic is not related to the number of binaries it creates, but that it is API based and contains everything but the kitchen sink. It does not do one thing well; it does a little of everything passably.
And the kernel is an excellent example of what systemd is not; the kernel is not an API based block of functionality. That is the core problem with systemd. It is built like Windows is, not like UNIX and POSIX is.
Your quotes reinforce that fact. It is not an assembly of tools which each do one thing well, but a lump of stuff.
And they can't even keep from bragging about boot speed improvements even in this answer. These guys have a huge ego problem.
To further belabor the point, Debian's argumentation for systemd shows exactly what is wrong with systemd and how it is a monolithic lump of functionality which does not belong together.
Quote: "Systemd is not just init. It unifies, in fewer lines of code, everything that is related to starting services and managing session groups: user login, cron jobs, network services (inetd), virtual TTY management"
Just because scope creep and feature creep leads to fewer lines of code does not make it good engineering. On the contrary, mashing together functionality leads to hard to detect bugs, race conditions and needless complexity and interdependence.
And that is precisely the problem with the monolithic and API based approach of systemd. It becomes fragile and version dependent, which is not what init should be.
I have basic security in my init process, and my init scripts work fine on their own and serialized. I reboot a few times a year, so a few seconds saved on parallelizing that (which is the only time they would need to co-operate) is NOT worth throwing a huge API laden lump into my system.
And systemd is a monolithic lump by design. It's a swathe of API's, which is the Windows way and has nothing to do with the UNIX way. It's an abomination which does not belong.
Slashdot Mirror
This would be valid if you could find people of a specific religious or spiritual belief who came to it without ever having come in contact with anyone teaching it to them before they came to it. But that does not happen. All these "subjective experiences" only serve to lead someone to a belief they have been taught about.
And yes, some people are charismatic enough to lead other people into believing they share their experience and vision. That happens in religion, state cults and various other situations, and is excellent evidence against any kind of real divinity behind religious experiences.
No; I do not believe in an expert. I believe in a series of experts independently replicating the experiment and coming up with generally compatible results.
As opposed to holy books, which diverge to such a tremendous degree that not even different sects in the same general religion can agree. If holy books were right there would be no need for missionaries; they would encounter people already holding a belief similar to their own. That they do not, that people who make up mythical explanations all come up with different ones, is very strong evidence that they are in fact simply made up.
In the case of judeochristianity the whole chain of making it up from a minor deity in the Babylonian mythos is well understood, and there exists no reason to consider it anything but a myth to keep a tribe together during difficult times.
The theory of evolution is a set of models designed to predict and explain the fact of evolution.
Just like the theory of gravity is a set of models designed to predict and explain the fact of gravity.
Could you provide some of those sources of verification please? The only ones I know of are:
Josephus, in which reference to Jesus were added centuries after the fact by monk scribes.
Tacitus, who recites what he has been told by early Christians.
Suetonius, who speaks of someone in Rome. If that is Jesus, everyone is wrong.
Thallus, the works of which are lost, and the alleged writings of which does not match any other historical records.
Pliny the Younger, who verifies that Christians exist, but says nothing about Jesus.
If there are others, and I would expect there are given your very forceful statement, please provide some insight. I am most curious to learn about them!
It's true, the NSA has performed treacherous acts against US allies.
Yes, it puts him the category of a worldwide hero, doing the whole world (except a measly 5%) one of the biggest favors in modern times.
What, a few of the 5% of people who are 'merkins don't like it? Screw'em, they can complain to their corporate overlords!
You only need to know assembly when writing C if you're trying to squeeze the performance of the code down to the point where every saved instruction makes a difference. And then you'll be embedding assembly anyway. This is a concern in a very narrow subset of an in turn small subset of software.
And that is why no-one is using Fortran, Scheme, COBOL, SQL, C, C++, bash, or countless other technologies today to develop bleeding edge systems. They're just too old and well documented and understood to build anything in these days!
And that is exactly the problem with systemd, and why it is an inferior version of launchd.
The problem is that systemd should not do what it does to the startup process. It's taking over *everything*, and the stated reason by the lead developer is to force Linux to behave as he wants it to.
It should not mount. It should not log. It should not handle network connections. It should not automount. Those are not init tasks. Those are specialized tasks which should be performed by specialized tools.
Most fare dodgers appear to be commuting white collar workers.
Actually DRM achieves a negative, as it drives many people who get burned by DRM to instead use alternative sources of content. Imperfect security *can* be worse than no security, depending on the circumstance.
Sure, your parents would not bother to learn how to use bittorrent, but they also would not bother to learn how to use netflix, or any other such service. Thus they are a non-issue when it comes to DRM; they just go buy something to watch, like most people do. To them it may as well not exist, as they bought a DVD player and then buy DVD's, and if they are DRM'd or not makes zero difference to them.
The ones that have an interest in new or hard to find content and have the motivation to learn about and use streaming and other such technology are the ones that get harmed by DRM, and who also have no problem finding alternative sources. Those are the ones that DRM drives away, and that is where the net loss occurs.
So sure, DRM does something. It reduces sales.
There is no assumption that it was easier for them to migrate to Linux than to Vista in that sentence. In fact, there was no mention of Vista anywhere at all in my comments. I've never performed a migration to Vista, only to various Linux variants, to Windows NT 4, Windows 2000, XP and Windows 7, so I most definitely have made no assumptions or conclusions about migration to Vista. It is nothing I have ever considered or paid any attention to, nor will I do so.
You seem quite confused. Perhaps you're mixing up what I wrote with what you think (or wish) I wrote.
You keep asserting I made assumptions. I did not. I performed this switch, multiple times. My answer is rooted in real world experience, just as yours is.
I'm sure that every time someone has a different experience than yours it must be wrong! ;)
I'm sure you were careful. Most people trying for a switch like this are. But your results speak for themselves; careful or not, you did not have the required knowledge to make the transition to Linux easy for experienced users.
I've eased people into Linux in many roles and at multiple times since the last millenium. It's become a lot easier more recently. In the last few years it has become so easy that it's pretty much just pointing out a few differences and off they go. Quite interesting. 5-10 years ago it was harder, and before that nearly impossible.
You have personal anecdotes, I have personal anecdotes. That is what it is.
Anecdotes are just that. Anecdotes. But most people who know office well do not work nearly as fast or efficient with the ribbon infested new versions. And if you had selected a UI closer to that of XP instead of whatever you picked things would have gone much smoother.
Having done this personally I have to point out that you're wrong. It is trivial to move people from XP to Linux. Moving them to Windows 7 was far more difficult. Did this last year. Ironically, the people who had the most difficult time with Windows 7 were the people who were most comfortable with a computer.
That is correct. Generally training people used to XP to use Linux is much cheaper than training them to use Windows 7.
Still a better love story than Twilight.
And this is what systemd should be doing. Not running udev on its own, and mounting file systems, and handling network connections, and $DEITY knows what else garbage it's stuffing in its bloated chunk of API rot.
If systemd did init, and did it well, and did nothing else, it would be embraced by pretty much everyone who was sane. What it does now makes me wonder the sanity of anyone who embraces it.
And I wish people who think that change is good just because it's change would have to deal with the real world consequences of such a foolish attitude.
That one does no debunking. Please, link some that does? As it stands I see no reason to discount the ewontfix article as it makes sense, and the link you provided does not.
What makes systemd monolithic is not related to the number of binaries it creates, but that it is API based and contains everything but the kitchen sink. It does not do one thing well; it does a little of everything passably.
And the kernel is an excellent example of what systemd is not; the kernel is not an API based block of functionality. That is the core problem with systemd. It is built like Windows is, not like UNIX and POSIX is.
Your quotes reinforce that fact. It is not an assembly of tools which each do one thing well, but a lump of stuff.
And they can't even keep from bragging about boot speed improvements even in this answer. These guys have a huge ego problem.
To further belabor the point, Debian's argumentation for systemd shows exactly what is wrong with systemd and how it is a monolithic lump of functionality which does not belong together.
https://wiki.debian.org/Debate...
Quote:
"Systemd is not just init. It unifies, in fewer lines of code, everything that is related to starting services and managing session groups: user login, cron jobs, network services (inetd), virtual TTY management"
Just because scope creep and feature creep leads to fewer lines of code does not make it good engineering. On the contrary, mashing together functionality leads to hard to detect bugs, race conditions and needless complexity and interdependence.
And that is precisely the problem with the monolithic and API based approach of systemd. It becomes fragile and version dependent, which is not what init should be.
I have basic security in my init process, and my init scripts work fine on their own and serialized. I reboot a few times a year, so a few seconds saved on parallelizing that (which is the only time they would need to co-operate) is NOT worth throwing a huge API laden lump into my system.
And systemd is a monolithic lump by design. It's a swathe of API's, which is the Windows way and has nothing to do with the UNIX way. It's an abomination which does not belong.