I took a trip to Europe last week. I tried using GPG but it told me that it won't encrypt anything because I'm not in the USA. Then I tried VeraCrypt but it made my hard drive fizzle out.
Yes, the vibrancy and availability of healthcare to all in the United States is living proof of how wonderfully capitalism distributes resources.
I love how defenders of capitalism act like it is the final, epoch of evolution of systems to distribute resources.
And that "scarcity" myth isn't even worth addressing.
You realize that billions of tax dollars go into federal health care coverage, right? How is that proof that capitalism = no health care?
What we have now is a corporatist system where all the laws and taxes are rigged to favor the profits of insurance and pharmaceutical companies. If this was a truly free market (i.e. you didn't get litigated to Timbuktu for producing knock-off brand drugs, doctors didn't give you needless tests to meet their administrator's quota, Planned Parenthood doesn't defraud Medicaid of billions of dollars, etc.), it would look quite a bit different.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than Marxism and corporatism and imperialism, I'll tell you that.
... if you're a capitalist.
If you accept you live in a purely capitalist society, then someone "bad at capitalism" is as a natural extension of that a "bad societal actor", or more concisely, a "bad citizen". It isn't hard to see how someone who views the world through a lens of "money is the all important" that someone without money or who is bad at managing it would be a criminal. It's wrong but I've known people who believe the abolition of debtor's prison was one of the single biggest blows to modern capitalism. Think about that. It's nuts.
That being said, making the rich take drug tests before receiving those tax breaks is about as likely as the rich actually paying their fair share of taxes.
Pure and utter drivel.
The basis of capitalism is not worship of money. The fact that some person you talked to favored debtor's prisons doesn't mean that everybody who believes in liberty worships money.
The basis of capitalism is that the free market is the most efficient and just way to distribute scarce resources.
I wonder if some kind of AI (Watson or similar) is going to deprecate a lot of these programming languages, extensions, and tools. Imagine if your AI could analyze your millions of lines of code in a few minutes, then aggressively optimize it and patch all of the bugs and vulnerabilities, while still giving the same intended output 100% of the time. I wonder what programming would look like at that point.
I imagine at that point everybody would be using a programming language like Go or Python that emphasizes readability and understandability, since all of the manual stuff you used to have to do with C or C++ or asm won't be necessary anymore.
No you are wrong, systemd did something: it removed choice. A lot of it.
Really? I don't see it that way.
Before, you had: sysVinit, BSD init, OpenRC, upstart, and maybe a port of SMF and launchd.
Now you have all of the above, PLUS systemd and uselessd (which is a less-featured fork of systemd).
What's the "upstream" here? The only case where that seems to apply is Ubuntu switching from upstart in order to stay in sync with Debian.
There is a myriad of other Debian offshoots besides Ubuntu. Ubuntu has its own ecosystem, but just about all the others are stuck with whatever crap the asshats at Debian may decide on a whim to pollute Debian with.
Horrible argument. You're complaining that the free (as in both speech and beer) work that has been done for the entire world to benefit wasn't done precisely to your liking. If Debian sucks so bad then you shouldn't have based any of your work on it.
They made Gnome dependent on systemd which pushed it on the distrobutions.
Ok? Then they could've forked the last version of GNOME without the systemd dependency if they wanted to avoid it. This isn't a terribly compelling reason to see systemd as "forced" upon anybody.
The animosity came from Ian Jackson's insane anti-systemd trolling. He eventually resigned from the Technical Committee after recognizing the damage he caused to the community. However every time systemd was voted on, it was the chosen init system.
You'd have to be a moron to use Solaris. Oracle is a licensing predator and will harass you for more fees, just like Microsoft and their draconian "software audits".
That should be "doesn't mean bad quality = more success and low quality = *more success."
And furthermore, if you want to talk about Microsoft destroying Linux, I would imagine they would use the same tactic as they did with SCO (i.e. fund their egregious lawsuit and use FUD to prevent people from switching off Microsoft). All of the insane anti-systemd FUD is more characteristic of Microsoft than systemd itself is.
Funny, thats precisely the argument used by Windows against Linux, that commercial success equated to technical quality. It would come as no surprise at all to learn that Poettering was a successful Microsoft plant to disrupt and destroy the Linux community from within. It worked with Nokia.
That makes no sense whatsoever. You're right that commercial success != technical quality, but that doesn't mean bad quality = more success and low quality = less.
Poettering works for Red Hat, who get all their revenues from Linux. Why the hell would they want to destroy Linux from within? Your conspiracy theory not only lacks evidence but doesn't make a lick of sense.
Go read the article again. The systemd devs wanted to change the default option about terminating processes on log-out, which would break nohup. This default option can easily be switched back by distro maintainers. The debate was about whether the improved security of this default is worth breaking some of the users' expected behaviors of programs like tmux. It's not so simple as "systemd breaks hup".
most of the Linux community has moved away from your preference
The usage statistics of all the major Linux distros and the financials of the major Linux companies (Red Hat, IBM, SUSE, Oracle, Canonical) don't seem to suggest that at all.
I see a lot of anonymous cowards on Slashdot being loud against systemd, but in the real world it's just another tool that people use, no different than the GNU utilities or APT.
The same anonymous cowards are proclaiming some kind of exodus to the BSDs, but their usage statistics don't really support that either.
Again, nobody is taking apt or yum away from you. Snappy Core is meant to complement them. If you don't like it, don't use it. As it stands now, you're being a huge douchebag because Canonical developed a technology with their own time and money and are offering it to the Linux community for free, and you're thrashing and crying about it.
Most Linux distro communities voted or otherwise decided that they only wanted to support systemd.
"Wanting to support" something and "accepting it because upstream is shoving it down your throat and forking is too much work" are two different things.
What's the "upstream" here? The only case where that seems to apply is Ubuntu switching from upstart in order to stay in sync with Debian. Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, and Arch all decided entirely of their own volition.
Its main purpose is for servers that require zero downtime, where you want to upgrade application X and/or its dependencies without breaking even the smallest functionality of application Y.
I disagree, snapd is Canonical's attempt to bring an android/ios like 'app universe' to their linux OS. Unfortunately if it succeeds, I also forsee it bringing the in-app advertisements and micro-payments mess:(
There will only be in-app advertisements and micro payments if the developers put them in. If they do so, blame them, and not the format of the package they decided upon.
1) Systemd and GNOME 3 aren't the only "modern technologies" out there. They are among the most anti-UNIX-philosophy ones. There are other modern init systems and desktop environments that do follow the UNIX philosophy, we just see the major distros treat them as second-class citizens, although they're typically superior to systemd and GNOME 3.
2) The point of using a mainstream distro is to get access to the wide community support network and the benefits it brings, including more testing of releases and quicker bug/security fixes.
3) The whole point of using a Linux distro is to avoid having to roll your own! In the past there used to be choice among the major distros. Debian is what you used when you wanted a system that worked. SuSE is where you went if you liked KDE. Ubuntu is where you went if you wanted a Windows-like experience. Fedora is where you went if you wanted to subject yourself to Red Hat-produced shit.
I know you're intentionally ignoring the real problem here: the fact that the major Linux distros have converged to the point where they're nearly identical. Worst of all, they've chosen to converge on software that exhibits a very anti-UNIX approach, such as systemd and GNOME 3.
Today, a modern Linux distro installation is closer to Windows than it is to anything resembling UNIX. The Linux userland has become a cheap imitation of Windows in so many ways, from the GUI down to the init and service management systems.
If you want a Linux distro that doesn't use systemd, you have a lot of options. But your complaint seems to be that that most of the Linux community has moved away from your preference. Well I'm sorry princess that you're not in the majority anymore, so either get comfortable in the minority, get your hands dirty with the majority, or do the work getting things exactly how you want them. But I'm not terribly sympathetic to your complaints if you're sad that the rest of the world isn't 100% empathetic to your desires, sparing you from the work of making your own perfect distro to your preferences.
At least I can understand the systemd complaining, because most distros don't support sysvinit or upstart anymore. But I really don't get the GNOME 3 bitching. I hate it just as much as you do, but literally every single one of the big distros (so that's Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, CentOS, Arch and Gentoo) support alternatives.
And i think i speak for us all when I say I'll be in the cold cold ground before i ever trust some bull-shit packager repository more than portage. Shuttleworth can eat my ass like groceries.
I don't understand the hostility. Canonical developed a new tool for you to use if you want to, for free (as in both beer and speech). Nobody is taking portage away from you.
...because it has a niche role to play that you don't ever have to use if you don't want to.
Just like systemd!
While it's true that you don't have to ever use systemd if you don't want to (as mentioned above, you can use Slackware, Devuan, CRUX, Gentoo, and others), they're really not comparable. systemd logically has to replace some other init system, so it's not a niche tool at all. On the other hand, Snappy Core is meant to complement other packaging systems, not replace them.
It's not a contradiction. A better way of putting it might be "more Unix and less Windows please".
It remains to be seen whether today's iteration of "yet another standard" is going to reduce the number of standards or just increase them (as is usually the case).
Also, dpkg and rpm are already widely supported. Moving to something new wipes out all of that progress. Churn for it's own sake in general does that.
We're not Microsoft. We can't burn something down and completely redo it every release like they do. We don't have the clout for people to put up with that kind of nonsense.
Ignore the clickbait headline. Nobody is saying "deprecate apt and yum". Snappy was invented to be used in parallel to them.
You don't want to switch. Nobody is saying use Snappy Core exclusively, it's not designed for that.
Its main purpose is for servers that require zero downtime, where you want to upgrade application X and/or its dependencies without breaking even the smallest functionality of application Y.
systemd didn't "do" anything. Most Linux distro communities voted or otherwise decided that they only wanted to support systemd.
Snappy Core used by itself has a lot of disadvantages to apt, yum, etc. so it likely won't replace any of them (ignore the clickbait title). However it can be used well in parallel to them.
Slashdot Mirror
I took a trip to Europe last week. I tried using GPG but it told me that it won't encrypt anything because I'm not in the USA. Then I tried VeraCrypt but it made my hard drive fizzle out.
Yes, the vibrancy and availability of healthcare to all in the United States is living proof of how wonderfully capitalism distributes resources. I love how defenders of capitalism act like it is the final, epoch of evolution of systems to distribute resources. And that "scarcity" myth isn't even worth addressing.
You realize that billions of tax dollars go into federal health care coverage, right? How is that proof that capitalism = no health care?
What we have now is a corporatist system where all the laws and taxes are rigged to favor the profits of insurance and pharmaceutical companies. If this was a truly free market (i.e. you didn't get litigated to Timbuktu for producing knock-off brand drugs, doctors didn't give you needless tests to meet their administrator's quota, Planned Parenthood doesn't defraud Medicaid of billions of dollars, etc.), it would look quite a bit different.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than Marxism and corporatism and imperialism, I'll tell you that.
... if you're a capitalist. If you accept you live in a purely capitalist society, then someone "bad at capitalism" is as a natural extension of that a "bad societal actor", or more concisely, a "bad citizen". It isn't hard to see how someone who views the world through a lens of "money is the all important" that someone without money or who is bad at managing it would be a criminal. It's wrong but I've known people who believe the abolition of debtor's prison was one of the single biggest blows to modern capitalism. Think about that. It's nuts. That being said, making the rich take drug tests before receiving those tax breaks is about as likely as the rich actually paying their fair share of taxes.
Pure and utter drivel.
The basis of capitalism is not worship of money. The fact that some person you talked to favored debtor's prisons doesn't mean that everybody who believes in liberty worships money.
The basis of capitalism is that the free market is the most efficient and just way to distribute scarce resources.
I wonder if some kind of AI (Watson or similar) is going to deprecate a lot of these programming languages, extensions, and tools. Imagine if your AI could analyze your millions of lines of code in a few minutes, then aggressively optimize it and patch all of the bugs and vulnerabilities, while still giving the same intended output 100% of the time. I wonder what programming would look like at that point.
I imagine at that point everybody would be using a programming language like Go or Python that emphasizes readability and understandability, since all of the manual stuff you used to have to do with C or C++ or asm won't be necessary anymore.
Not only is this the optimal security practice, it also convinces corps still using that proprietary legacy crap to move to HTML5.
No you are wrong, systemd did something: it removed choice. A lot of it.
Really? I don't see it that way.
Before, you had: sysVinit, BSD init, OpenRC, upstart, and maybe a port of SMF and launchd.
Now you have all of the above, PLUS systemd and uselessd (which is a less-featured fork of systemd).
You have more choice now. Not less.
There is a myriad of other Debian offshoots besides Ubuntu. Ubuntu has its own ecosystem, but just about all the others are stuck with whatever crap the asshats at Debian may decide on a whim to pollute Debian with.
Horrible argument. You're complaining that the free (as in both speech and beer) work that has been done for the entire world to benefit wasn't done precisely to your liking. If Debian sucks so bad then you shouldn't have based any of your work on it.
They made Gnome dependent on systemd which pushed it on the distrobutions.
Ok? Then they could've forked the last version of GNOME without the systemd dependency if they wanted to avoid it. This isn't a terribly compelling reason to see systemd as "forced" upon anybody.
The animosity came from Ian Jackson's insane anti-systemd trolling. He eventually resigned from the Technical Committee after recognizing the damage he caused to the community. However every time systemd was voted on, it was the chosen init system.
You'd have to be a moron to use Solaris. Oracle is a licensing predator and will harass you for more fees, just like Microsoft and their draconian "software audits".
My mistake. I was using "doesn't support" as shorthand for "doesn't ship sysvinit-core by default", but you're right, I was wrong.
That should be "doesn't mean bad quality = more success and low quality = *more success."
And furthermore, if you want to talk about Microsoft destroying Linux, I would imagine they would use the same tactic as they did with SCO (i.e. fund their egregious lawsuit and use FUD to prevent people from switching off Microsoft). All of the insane anti-systemd FUD is more characteristic of Microsoft than systemd itself is.
Funny, thats precisely the argument used by Windows against Linux, that commercial success equated to technical quality. It would come as no surprise at all to learn that Poettering was a successful Microsoft plant to disrupt and destroy the Linux community from within. It worked with Nokia.
That makes no sense whatsoever. You're right that commercial success != technical quality, but that doesn't mean bad quality = more success and low quality = less.
Poettering works for Red Hat, who get all their revenues from Linux. Why the hell would they want to destroy Linux from within? Your conspiracy theory not only lacks evidence but doesn't make a lick of sense.
Go read the article again. The systemd devs wanted to change the default option about terminating processes on log-out, which would break nohup. This default option can easily be switched back by distro maintainers. The debate was about whether the improved security of this default is worth breaking some of the users' expected behaviors of programs like tmux. It's not so simple as "systemd breaks hup".
The usage statistics of all the major Linux distros and the financials of the major Linux companies (Red Hat, IBM, SUSE, Oracle, Canonical) don't seem to suggest that at all.
I see a lot of anonymous cowards on Slashdot being loud against systemd, but in the real world it's just another tool that people use, no different than the GNU utilities or APT.
The same anonymous cowards are proclaiming some kind of exodus to the BSDs, but their usage statistics don't really support that either.
Again, nobody is taking apt or yum away from you. Snappy Core is meant to complement them. If you don't like it, don't use it. As it stands now, you're being a huge douchebag because Canonical developed a technology with their own time and money and are offering it to the Linux community for free, and you're thrashing and crying about it.
"Wanting to support" something and "accepting it because upstream is shoving it down your throat and forking is too much work" are two different things.
What's the "upstream" here? The only case where that seems to apply is Ubuntu switching from upstart in order to stay in sync with Debian. Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, and Arch all decided entirely of their own volition.
Its main purpose is for servers that require zero downtime, where you want to upgrade application X and/or its dependencies without breaking even the smallest functionality of application Y.
I disagree, snapd is Canonical's attempt to bring an android/ios like 'app universe' to their linux OS. Unfortunately if it succeeds, I also forsee it bringing the in-app advertisements and micro-payments mess :(
There will only be in-app advertisements and micro payments if the developers put them in. If they do so, blame them, and not the format of the package they decided upon.
There's no contradiction.
1) Systemd and GNOME 3 aren't the only "modern technologies" out there. They are among the most anti-UNIX-philosophy ones. There are other modern init systems and desktop environments that do follow the UNIX philosophy, we just see the major distros treat them as second-class citizens, although they're typically superior to systemd and GNOME 3.
2) The point of using a mainstream distro is to get access to the wide community support network and the benefits it brings, including more testing of releases and quicker bug/security fixes.
3) The whole point of using a Linux distro is to avoid having to roll your own! In the past there used to be choice among the major distros. Debian is what you used when you wanted a system that worked. SuSE is where you went if you liked KDE. Ubuntu is where you went if you wanted a Windows-like experience. Fedora is where you went if you wanted to subject yourself to Red Hat-produced shit.
I know you're intentionally ignoring the real problem here: the fact that the major Linux distros have converged to the point where they're nearly identical. Worst of all, they've chosen to converge on software that exhibits a very anti-UNIX approach, such as systemd and GNOME 3.
Today, a modern Linux distro installation is closer to Windows than it is to anything resembling UNIX. The Linux userland has become a cheap imitation of Windows in so many ways, from the GUI down to the init and service management systems.
If you want a Linux distro that doesn't use systemd, you have a lot of options. But your complaint seems to be that that most of the Linux community has moved away from your preference. Well I'm sorry princess that you're not in the majority anymore, so either get comfortable in the minority, get your hands dirty with the majority, or do the work getting things exactly how you want them. But I'm not terribly sympathetic to your complaints if you're sad that the rest of the world isn't 100% empathetic to your desires, sparing you from the work of making your own perfect distro to your preferences.
At least I can understand the systemd complaining, because most distros don't support sysvinit or upstart anymore. But I really don't get the GNOME 3 bitching. I hate it just as much as you do, but literally every single one of the big distros (so that's Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, CentOS, Arch and Gentoo) support alternatives.
And i think i speak for us all when I say I'll be in the cold cold ground before i ever trust some bull-shit packager repository more than portage. Shuttleworth can eat my ass like groceries.
I don't understand the hostility. Canonical developed a new tool for you to use if you want to, for free (as in both beer and speech). Nobody is taking portage away from you.
...because it has a niche role to play that you don't ever have to use if you don't want to.
Just like systemd!
While it's true that you don't have to ever use systemd if you don't want to (as mentioned above, you can use Slackware, Devuan, CRUX, Gentoo, and others), they're really not comparable. systemd logically has to replace some other init system, so it's not a niche tool at all. On the other hand, Snappy Core is meant to complement other packaging systems, not replace them.
It's not a contradiction. A better way of putting it might be "more Unix and less Windows please".
It remains to be seen whether today's iteration of "yet another standard" is going to reduce the number of standards or just increase them (as is usually the case).
Also, dpkg and rpm are already widely supported. Moving to something new wipes out all of that progress. Churn for it's own sake in general does that.
We're not Microsoft. We can't burn something down and completely redo it every release like they do. We don't have the clout for people to put up with that kind of nonsense.
Ignore the clickbait headline. Nobody is saying "deprecate apt and yum". Snappy was invented to be used in parallel to them.
You don't want to switch. Nobody is saying use Snappy Core exclusively, it's not designed for that.
Its main purpose is for servers that require zero downtime, where you want to upgrade application X and/or its dependencies without breaking even the smallest functionality of application Y.
Many Linux and OSS contributors today are under 25 years old.
Do you have a single citation for that? And not some Stack Overflow survey, I mean the people who make decisions at Canonical, Debian, Red Hat, etc.
systemd didn't "do" anything. Most Linux distro communities voted or otherwise decided that they only wanted to support systemd.
Snappy Core used by itself has a lot of disadvantages to apt, yum, etc. so it likely won't replace any of them (ignore the clickbait title). However it can be used well in parallel to them.