Translating to C would not impose a limitation on the language features of C++, its possible to generate whatever C code you need to support C++ features. Using an LALR parser would introduce limitations on language design, however. This was once very common.
Dependancy and target based startup is not a bad idea and can be useful in many scenarios. Its probably not necessary to start many services, though many admins can benefit from the feature where needed and it can actually make administration easier. Since SystemD provides Sys V init, and backwards compatability, the criticism of systemd is a bit overblown as people can simply use system v init features on systemd if they want. The integration of cron, syslog and init was important for being able to launch a service dependant based on say another cron event occuring. There are better ways to do this however using a decentralized model using well defined IPC bus interfaces and protocols allowing for the functionalities to be in seperate processes but allowing processes to communicate with each other, and each a user swappable components as I will describe later. There is no need to have one big monolithic process or poorly understood components which are not swappable and do not communicate using well understood and documented protocols that can facilitate users swapping out components.
I doubt that systemd would be as big of a controversy as it is if the additional functionality was added but not heavily used all over the place for most of the services on the system and the distribution had not felt the need to convert every single service to the new type of init file. Its sort of like people who think they have to use every single C++ feature when C++ is not intended for that, its a bag of tools where the programmer is supposed to choose the tool they need, rather than something where the programmer is supposed to use every single last tool. Instead, the distributions who adopted it felt the need to convert most services over to the new init file format. This created a very much so in your face kind of obtrusiveness that was easily noticeable by many. It was unnecessary in many cases as dependancy based startups can stil even be triggered from System V style initializations. Since systemd supports SysV startup, the majority of init files could have been left in SysV format which would have avoided much controversy. Another possibility is to offer init files in both the old and new formats so people can choose which one they desire.
I believe in a mechanism not policy approach. Systemd's own model of dependancy init are useful in some cases however, are probably overkill for other services. The features should be there for those cases that people may need to use them. Systemd does allow users to the flexibility to use sysV init so the fact is for starting your services you can always have the started from sysV scripts even on Systemd. Ive done it and works fine.
Many complain about the all or nothing approach of systemd. An init system like this should be built around IPC bus, using well defined protocols, interfaces and message formats which are extremely well documented to the public. This way we can get the dependancy based start up, while giving admins complete control and allowing the init system to be built from swappable components. Lets say we wanted to have a daemon started after 5 conditions are fulfilled, 3 other daemons started, the network interface up and 5 minutes elapsed from system boot. The init components that start the 3 prereq daemons would produce IPC bus messages as each of those are started. The kernel would generate a bus message when the network interface would go up. You could write your own init daemon that would watch the bus for all of these events and would also set a 5 minute timer as well, it would keep track of all of these events and when all of them are fulfilled it could then start the daemon and would announce on the bus that it it doing so.
This would allow you to write drop in replacements yourself for any part of the init system. The bus interfaces would all be well documented so you could write your own python script if you wanted to watch the bus for events and be able to start a daemon or process when you see the prerequisite events on the bus. Th
Any init system like this should be built around an IPC type design, using something like DBUS,involving well defined protocols. This would allow you to drop in replacements of your choice for different parts of the system. Each component would listen to well defined messages that it is interested in. For instance, if you have a daemon that wants to launch after another daemon, when the first daemon is launched by init, a message is issued announcing this on the bus, and other modules can listen for this and react to it how they see fit. The init system should be based on a set of standards, with facilities for non-standard or pre-standard extensions that can be developed since we cannot anticipate before hand every need that someone may have. But with well defined interfaces the components can be swappable and things will still be able to work together.
What problem someone would have with this, I have no clue.
One of the complaints of software vendors has been that with Linux you would have to maintain a completely different installation package for each of the 200 Linux distributions. LSB was meant to help fix this problem. Abandoning the effort bodes poorly if people who want to ship binaries, this does not include just proprietary software, many, many open source projects also distributes binaries, so if your going to abandon LSB your really setting back and really wiping out a facility for distribution nuetral packages.
Secondly, LSB was not a mandatory install as I recall, you could choose not to install many LSB packages so not as if you did not have any use for it your resources are going to be used for it;.
Just a lousy decision, another politically driven decision by debian which seems show indifference to the need for cooperation between distributions for interoperability.
Systemd is not bad at all really, all of my scripts execute well. Maybe the default settings are not what you need so you just configure some of your own rc style scripts to be run and problem solved. Its not like systemd hs taken away the old startup model, you can use it quite happily under systemd, so I don't know what the problem is. No one is forcing you to use prerequisite based startup in systemd and I do not myself, all systemd is adds additional capability to what is already available.
I was of the understanding that current radiotelescopes could not pick up a regular broadcast signal of the type that is sent by commercial transmitters but that the signal would have to be much more powerful and concentrated, intentionally sent for the purpose of detection from another planet. I suppose that I was wrong?
Secondly, what benefits would a gravity or nuetrino have over EMF for communications? If it was so great why wouldnt be we be using it? How would you create a gravity or neutrino communications device? An expensive, complex communication technique just because it would be hard to use doesnt make it more practical and ETs are likely to be practical.
Another way it can be changed is actually enforce sodomy/cohabitation laws (ban out of wedlock sex) and make divorces almost impossible to get. All of these laws were once in place but were dismantled by Liberals. So stop telling us nothing can be done about the problem, the only reason nothing would be done about the problem is you Liberals would stand in the way of doing these things, you are the ones that pushed for all of this madness of divorce on demand, the breakdown of marriage, the legitimization of having chidlren outside of wedlock, etc, and these policies lead to the dismal situation in the Black community. You Liberals want to make sure that people can have free sex, one night stands, produce illegimate welfare children, pass around the STDs and live a totally reckless, gluttonous and self centered lifestyle becuase it produce more of the low caliber, deranged, psychotic, and America hating voting block that your DemocRATic party depends upon.
It could be changed, by reforming the welfare programs to stop making having welfare babies out of wedlock pay. There are a lot of possibilities for doing this, such as not giving out welfare benefits on a per child basis, not giving out services to the parent but directly to minors (a soup kitchen type setup). Also get rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit. The problem with the way that many of these programs work is they give more money to the parent or every illegitimate child, the parents can then use this money how they want, on themselves.
That stuff can be disabled, though, even when enabled in my opinion Chrome is still more secure due to the fact that the sandbox's value outweighs it. I do agree that the behaviour you mention should be at the most opt-in rather than on by default.
Firefox is still far more insecure than Chrome due to lack of a sandbox feature and multiprocess. Instead of spending so much time on pocket they needed to get the sandbox done. They should have had the sandbox in 3 years and are only dragging their feet on it being forced to keep up with Chrome on this matter.Still a very insecure browser. Total negligence. Whats ironic is they would mainly need to plugin into infrastructure that was already implemented for Chrome on Linux, as it was Chrome that pushed implementation of a process sandbox on Linux.
I can second this-- this has been my experience as well. Its not really that they are socialist extremists, but, their intolerance of anyone who is not.
It would have been best to hire some in house programmers , certainly could have been done with some portion of the few billion, and have them write a new system, which could then be made public like VISTA. This way the government owns it, instead, there will be an opaque system and the government will be held captive to extortion from providers.
That code is written like every byte costed $500. Don't let this reflect badly on M. The problem is they used one character variables and no formatting. You can wrote worse code in C. M is perfectly readable if you use good variable names and formatting.
This diversity junk is a disease. Its a mental disorder. People must take personal responsibility if they want something and they refuse to do so they have no one to blame but themselves. To say we should punish people who did work to reward people who refuse to take initiative and make the equal effort is insane and it punishes those who honestly worked for what they have. There is nothing, nothing at all that prevents people of any race, or gender, from going into IT job fields. As long as they are citizens of the country, I am all for anyone who wants to doing this. The fact is, they should have the same access to educational opportunities as everyone else. If you give anyone preferential treatment, you are creating a system of discrimination that provides a benefit to one group and not another. In fact, that seems to be what they are doing. The Bottom line, is if this group or that group is not taking advantage of the educational opportunities that is available to everyone equally, then thats their own fault and their own problem. If we are going to give these people MORE opportunities than other groups what you are doing is creating a new form of discrimination. Basically, the rule should be everyone should have access to the same educational, prepatory, and employment opportunities, regardless of their race. If people of a certain race refuse to make use of these opportunities, thats their own problem, they have to take responsibility for themselves and their actions and no one else is to blame if they refuse to do so. If we start shovelling more money at people who through their own choice refuse to take advantage of the same opportunities available to everyone else, you are punishing everyone else who WORKED and made the effort to achieve, you are punishing people for no fault of their own, people who honestly worked to achieve what they have, not having a benefit that was not available to anyone else, essentially what we are doing is rewarding mediocrity and sloth. This diversity for the sake of diversity and punish people who actually work for their achievement to reward those who refuse to take initiative has got to stop
I've heard about MUMPS from it being used in Vista, the records system of the Veterans Affairs Administration, a large public domain corpus of software which was released from a FOIA request to the VA.
MUMPS is not a bad language. As with many languages, the source code readability depends on the programmers mostly, there isnt anything about MUMPS that makes it particularly hard to read. Intersystems Cache is one of the commercial implementations though it tends to downplay its MUMPS foundation, because of the false stigma around the language.
You are right. Data could also be leaked, which would be awful. Guard pages are another feature often used, when a buffer overflow occurs it would often hit the guard page which being unallocated space will segfault, but its not perfect. Its a lot easier to protect code than it is to protect data.
PAE and x86-64 and probably other CPUs now have page table flags for protecting against buffer overrun by non-executable, readonly memory sections and such. An overrun will cause a segfault rather than an actual overrun. This significantly improve things. So what is the status of this in major Linux distros?
The fact is, systemd doesnt force anything on you. You are free to start your jobs from SysV scripts just as before. Systemd also follows a highly modular architecture and design that fits in with the Unix philosophy. So its not a big monolithic thing. So, I don't see what the problem is. Systemd is fine by me and I see no issue as it only adds additional capability rather than takes them away. Since it does not take away any features, basically what you are arguing for is that people should not be allowed to have Systemd's features or be able to use them. Ironically its people like you who make the accusation that you are being put upon, when in fact Systemd has taken nothing away from you, it does not prevent you from starting your jobs just as you do now as it fully supports the older mechanisms and is backward compatible. The bottom line is if you dont like the new mechanisms, systemd lets you use the old ones.
Its astonishing to me that this thing still doesnt do a sandbox. They keep adding stuff like video chat, great, but if you can spend time on that you can find time for getting the sandbox in. They have been talking about the sandbox for years. Implement it by default already and if for some reason a plugin a user is incompatable allow the user to select to go back to single process. There is no reason why the sandbox should have taken this long. Yes you have go to a multi process model but it shouldnt be THAT big of a job to take years.
A scenario like this has been warned about or some time. The policymakers have ignored these warnings. Instead, they spent money on wasteful projects such as long distance high speed rail, projects which are not really feasible in a state like California. Basically, California is run by foolish idiots who ignored their states real problems and instead wasted money on expensive and wasteful long distance rail projects, which are more about optics than about value. Before you misunderstand, understand that rail inside cities is a good idea, but the market dynamics for that is very different from rail lines between cities. Building long distance high speed rail is far too expensive and will not really be a good value at all, partly due to planes likely being preferable to many, with all of the costs and funding being accounted for. The amount of track that has to be installed is far greater, than in cities where you can serve commuters with far less trackage. For ground based transport an upgrade to bus lines would be a much more cost effective solution.
Instead of spending money on that it should have spent it on more water projects, including desalination, reservoirs and storage. Things like water storage and transport are just not as hip and cool sounding as massively wasteful white elephants like the long distance rail.
I would also like to add that my previous comments regarding the loss of free speech in our society was about civility and issues regarding etiquette rather than exclusively the law. Obviously, etiquette and law are different things, I do lament the loss of the ability to openly profess ones views generally in a society, regardless as to the legal status and condition around such speech issues. On the gay wedding cake issue, I can see there is a problem there and the denial of service is not something I agree with.
Apples and oranges. there is a tendancy to compare a speech issue to what the law actually is regarding a non-speech issue. The gay wedding cake issue is not about speech, the baker didnt deny the gay couple any free speech rights. The baker was also not playing cop, businesses generally have a right to refuse services (not that I am wholly in agreement with this), and there are exceptions to that, the case concerns how far those exceptions go. About the issue regarding legality of acts in relation to speech, For instance, you have every right to suggest that say, driving 200 mph on residential streets should be legal, that its not legal does not mean your free speech rights have been violated to hold your own opinion on this matter. Free speech does not give you the right to do things that you can use your free speech rights to advocate should be legal. Its important with the wedding cake issue, was that they were not refusing service to all gays for any service, only the cake which was being used for the weddings. Obviously, to refuse service to gays for say, table seating in a restaurant, is a situation with different circumstances. Not all christians support the idea of refusing service to gays on the issue of providing a cake, basically becuase many christians have a view that its not our position to judge them, even though it is against the tenants of the religion. Not all christian denominations oppose gay unions, either, if you are gay there are several Christian denominations to choose from that would accept you and hold your ceremony. The people that were pressing these buttons on the gay wedding cake issue had plenty of bakers who would bake a gay wedding cake for them, they actually went from baker to baker to find one who one who would refuse to do it so they could then castigate them. Personally, I do not agree with refusing to make a wedding cake for gays, if I am running a business and someone comes to me wanting a lawful product or service I would not deny it to them on account of their sexual preferences. It is my view that gay marriage should not be legal, you cannot just change the definitions of words. I am supportive of civil unions for gays that give them the same benefits, they can call it a wedding if they want but thats not what it should officially be titled on paper. Yes, its about definitions of words, words do mean things, you cannot call a cat a dog and just change those definitions willy nilly, the very definition of marriage is a union between man and women for the purpose of producing children, it is important that Marriage mean something and have a clear definition for the function it is mean to encourage, to be something that is to promote family values as this is a critical bedrock for a civilization.
People may have different religious views than you, but, so what, its a free country. The manner in which in this society we have this oversensitization to being offended and against someones views and opinions offending someone is being used to shut down free speech and the free expression and exchange of ideas and information. Its actually the worst with the leftists who are most intolerant of anyone who does not agree with their views on matters and use "being offended" by Christians to basically attack and shut down anyone who is a professed Christain from being able to talk about their own beliefs and profess it. There's in an old phrase, I disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it. So many people today, especially those on the left, are becoming increasingly opposed to people being able to express themselves and use their own perverse, twisted and insane defintions of "tolerance" to shut down any dissenting or opposing viewpoints, especially if you are a Christian and someone doesnt like your viewpoints, you are accused and labelled as being "intolerant" and "hateful" just by expressing your own viewpoints and religious ideas, not by trying to shut down others ability to express their own. What is going on here is that "intolerance" is now expressing a view that other people think are offensive, rather than trying to shutdown others peoples ability to express their own views. They have in effect turned everything upside down. Now if it is "tolerant" to suppress and censor anyone who says something you offend with, and "intolerant" for anyone to express views you disagree with. By basically saying that if you disagree with leftist atheists, muslims or whatever, you are somehow "intolerant", leftists are shutting down free speech and claiming to be "tolerant" when in fact they are "intolerant".
Slashdot Mirror
Translating to C would not impose a limitation on the language features of C++, its possible to generate whatever C code you need to support C++ features. Using an LALR parser would introduce limitations on language design, however. This was once very common.
Dependancy and target based startup is not a bad idea and can be useful in many scenarios. Its probably not necessary to start many services, though many admins can benefit from the feature where needed and it can actually make administration easier. Since SystemD provides Sys V init, and backwards compatability, the criticism of systemd is a bit overblown as people can simply use system v init features on systemd if they want. The integration of cron, syslog and init was important for being able to launch a service dependant based on say another cron event occuring. There are better ways to do this however using a decentralized model using well defined IPC bus interfaces and protocols allowing for the functionalities to be in seperate processes but allowing processes to communicate with each other, and each a user swappable components as I will describe later. There is no need to have one big monolithic process or poorly understood components which are not swappable and do not communicate using well understood and documented protocols that can facilitate users swapping out components.
I doubt that systemd would be as big of a controversy as it is if the additional functionality was added but not heavily used all over the place for most of the services on the system and the distribution had not felt the need to convert every single service to the new type of init file. Its sort of like people who think they have to use every single C++ feature when C++ is not intended for that, its a bag of tools where the programmer is supposed to choose the tool they need, rather than something where the programmer is supposed to use every single last tool. Instead, the distributions who adopted it felt the need to convert most services over to the new init file format. This created a very much so in your face kind of obtrusiveness that was easily noticeable by many. It was unnecessary in many cases as dependancy based startups can stil even be triggered from System V style initializations. Since systemd supports SysV startup, the majority of init files could have been left in SysV format which would have avoided much controversy. Another possibility is to offer init files in both the old and new formats so people can choose which one they desire.
I believe in a mechanism not policy approach. Systemd's own model of dependancy init are useful in some cases however, are probably overkill for other services. The features should be there for those cases that people may need to use them. Systemd does allow users to the flexibility to use sysV init so the fact is for starting your services you can always have the started from sysV scripts even on Systemd. Ive done it and works fine.
Many complain about the all or nothing approach of systemd. An init system like this should be built around IPC bus, using well defined protocols, interfaces and message formats which are extremely well documented to the public. This way we can get the dependancy based start up, while giving admins complete control and allowing the init system to be built from swappable components. Lets say we wanted to have a daemon started after 5 conditions are fulfilled, 3 other daemons started, the network interface up and 5 minutes elapsed from system boot. The init components that start the 3 prereq daemons would produce IPC bus messages as each of those are started. The kernel would generate a bus message when the network interface would go up. You could write your own init daemon that would watch the bus for all of these events and would also set a 5 minute timer as well, it would keep track of all of these events and when all of them are fulfilled it could then start the daemon and would announce on the bus that it it doing so.
This would allow you to write drop in replacements yourself for any part of the init system. The bus interfaces would all be well documented so you could write your own python script if you wanted to watch the bus for events and be able to start a daemon or process when you see the prerequisite events on the bus. Th
Any init system like this should be built around an IPC type design, using something like DBUS,involving well defined protocols. This would allow you to drop in replacements of your choice for different parts of the system. Each component would listen to well defined messages that it is interested in. For instance, if you have a daemon that wants to launch after another daemon, when the first daemon is launched by init, a message is issued announcing this on the bus, and other modules can listen for this and react to it how they see fit. The init system should be based on a set of standards, with facilities for non-standard or pre-standard extensions that can be developed since we cannot anticipate before hand every need that someone may have. But with well defined interfaces the components can be swappable and things will still be able to work together.
What problem someone would have with this, I have no clue.
One of the complaints of software vendors has been that with Linux you would have to maintain a completely different installation package for each of the 200 Linux distributions. LSB was meant to help fix this problem. Abandoning the effort bodes poorly if people who want to ship binaries, this does not include just proprietary software, many, many open source projects also distributes binaries, so if your going to abandon LSB your really setting back and really wiping out a facility for distribution nuetral packages.
Secondly, LSB was not a mandatory install as I recall, you could choose not to install many LSB packages so not as if you did not have any use for it your resources are going to be used for it;.
Just a lousy decision, another politically driven decision by debian which seems show indifference to the need for cooperation between distributions for interoperability.
Systemd is not bad at all really, all of my scripts execute well. Maybe the default settings are not what you need so you just configure some of your own rc style scripts to be run and problem solved. Its not like systemd hs taken away the old startup model, you can use it quite happily under systemd, so I don't know what the problem is. No one is forcing you to use prerequisite based startup in systemd and I do not myself, all systemd is adds additional capability to what is already available.
I was of the understanding that current radiotelescopes could not pick up a regular broadcast signal of the type that is sent by commercial transmitters but that the signal would have to be much more powerful and concentrated, intentionally sent for the purpose of detection from another planet. I suppose that I was wrong?
Secondly, what benefits would a gravity or nuetrino have over EMF for communications? If it was so great why wouldnt be we be using it? How would you create a gravity or neutrino communications device? An expensive, complex communication technique just because it would be hard to use doesnt make it more practical and ETs are likely to be practical.
Vulkan is not a replacement for OpenGL, by its own admission.
Another way it can be changed is actually enforce sodomy/cohabitation laws (ban out of wedlock sex) and make divorces almost impossible to get. All of these laws were once in place but were dismantled by Liberals. So stop telling us nothing can be done about the problem, the only reason nothing would be done about the problem is you Liberals would stand in the way of doing these things, you are the ones that pushed for all of this madness of divorce on demand, the breakdown of marriage, the legitimization of having chidlren outside of wedlock, etc, and these policies lead to the dismal situation in the Black community. You Liberals want to make sure that people can have free sex, one night stands, produce illegimate welfare children, pass around the STDs and live a totally reckless, gluttonous and self centered lifestyle becuase it produce more of the low caliber, deranged, psychotic, and America hating voting block that your DemocRATic party depends upon.
It could be changed, by reforming the welfare programs to stop making having welfare babies out of wedlock pay. There are a lot of possibilities for doing this, such as not giving out welfare benefits on a per child basis, not giving out services to the parent but directly to minors (a soup kitchen type setup). Also get rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit. The problem with the way that many of these programs work is they give more money to the parent or every illegitimate child, the parents can then use this money how they want, on themselves.
I always was under the impression that POSIX has something close to byte access with lseek().
That stuff can be disabled, though, even when enabled in my opinion Chrome is still more secure due to the fact that the sandbox's value outweighs it. I do agree that the behaviour you mention should be at the most opt-in rather than on by default.
Firefox is still far more insecure than Chrome due to lack of a sandbox feature and multiprocess. Instead of spending so much time on pocket they needed to get the sandbox done. They should have had the sandbox in 3 years and are only dragging their feet on it being forced to keep up with Chrome on this matter.Still a very insecure browser. Total negligence. Whats ironic is they would mainly need to plugin into infrastructure that was already implemented for Chrome on Linux, as it was Chrome that pushed implementation of a process sandbox on Linux.
I can second this-- this has been my experience as well. Its not really that they are socialist extremists, but, their intolerance of anyone who is not.
It would have been best to hire some in house programmers , certainly could have been done with some portion of the few billion, and have them write a new system, which could then be made public like VISTA. This way the government owns it, instead, there will be an opaque system and the government will be held captive to extortion from providers.
That code is written like every byte costed $500. Don't let this reflect badly on M. The problem is they used one character variables and no formatting. You can wrote worse code in C. M is perfectly readable if you use good variable names and formatting.
This diversity junk is a disease. Its a mental disorder. People must take personal responsibility if they want something and they refuse to do so they have no one to blame but themselves. To say we should punish people who did work to reward people who refuse to take initiative and make the equal effort is insane and it punishes those who honestly worked for what they have. There is nothing, nothing at all that prevents people of any race, or gender, from going into IT job fields. As long as they are citizens of the country, I am all for anyone who wants to doing this. The fact is, they should have the same access to educational opportunities as everyone else. If you give anyone preferential treatment, you are creating a system of discrimination that provides a benefit to one group and not another. In fact, that seems to be what they are doing. The Bottom line, is if this group or that group is not taking advantage of the educational opportunities that is available to everyone equally, then thats their own fault and their own problem. If we are going to give these people MORE opportunities than other groups what you are doing is creating a new form of discrimination. Basically, the rule should be everyone should have access to the same educational, prepatory, and employment opportunities, regardless of their race. If people of a certain race refuse to make use of these opportunities, thats their own problem, they have to take responsibility for themselves and their actions and no one else is to blame if they refuse to do so. If we start shovelling more money at people who through their own choice refuse to take advantage of the same opportunities available to everyone else, you are punishing everyone else who WORKED and made the effort to achieve, you are punishing people for no fault of their own, people who honestly worked to achieve what they have, not having a benefit that was not available to anyone else, essentially what we are doing is rewarding mediocrity and sloth. This diversity for the sake of diversity and punish people who actually work for their achievement to reward those who refuse to take initiative has got to stop
I've heard about MUMPS from it being used in Vista, the records system of the Veterans Affairs Administration, a large public domain corpus of software which was released from a FOIA request to the VA.
MUMPS is not a bad language. As with many languages, the source code readability depends on the programmers mostly, there isnt anything about MUMPS that makes it particularly hard to read. Intersystems Cache is one of the commercial implementations though it tends to downplay its MUMPS foundation, because of the false stigma around the language.
You are right. Data could also be leaked, which would be awful. Guard pages are another feature often used, when a buffer overflow occurs it would often hit the guard page which being unallocated space will segfault, but its not perfect. Its a lot easier to protect code than it is to protect data.
PAE and x86-64 and probably other CPUs now have page table flags for protecting against buffer overrun by non-executable, readonly memory sections and such. An overrun will cause a segfault rather than an actual overrun. This significantly improve things. So what is the status of this in major Linux distros?
The fact is, systemd doesnt force anything on you. You are free to start your jobs from SysV scripts just as before. Systemd also follows a highly modular architecture and design that fits in with the Unix philosophy. So its not a big monolithic thing. So, I don't see what the problem is. Systemd is fine by me and I see no issue as it only adds additional capability rather than takes them away. Since it does not take away any features, basically what you are arguing for is that people should not be allowed to have Systemd's features or be able to use them. Ironically its people like you who make the accusation that you are being put upon, when in fact Systemd has taken nothing away from you, it does not prevent you from starting your jobs just as you do now as it fully supports the older mechanisms and is backward compatible. The bottom line is if you dont like the new mechanisms, systemd lets you use the old ones.
Its astonishing to me that this thing still doesnt do a sandbox. They keep adding stuff like video chat, great, but if you can spend time on that you can find time for getting the sandbox in. They have been talking about the sandbox for years. Implement it by default already and if for some reason a plugin a user is incompatable allow the user to select to go back to single process. There is no reason why the sandbox should have taken this long. Yes you have go to a multi process model but it shouldnt be THAT big of a job to take years.
A scenario like this has been warned about or some time. The policymakers have ignored these warnings. Instead, they spent money on wasteful projects such as long distance high speed rail, projects which are not really feasible in a state like California. Basically, California is run by foolish idiots who ignored their states real problems and instead wasted money on expensive and wasteful long distance rail projects, which are more about optics than about value. Before you misunderstand, understand that rail inside cities is a good idea, but the market dynamics for that is very different from rail lines between cities. Building long distance high speed rail is far too expensive and will not really be a good value at all, partly due to planes likely being preferable to many, with all of the costs and funding being accounted for. The amount of track that has to be installed is far greater, than in cities where you can serve commuters with far less trackage. For ground based transport an upgrade to bus lines would be a much more cost effective solution.
Instead of spending money on that it should have spent it on more water projects, including desalination, reservoirs and storage. Things like water storage and transport are just not as hip and cool sounding as massively wasteful white elephants like the long distance rail.
I would also like to add that my previous comments regarding the loss of free speech in our society was about civility and issues regarding etiquette rather than exclusively the law. Obviously, etiquette and law are different things, I do lament the loss of the ability to openly profess ones views generally in a society, regardless as to the legal status and condition around such speech issues. On the gay wedding cake issue, I can see there is a problem there and the denial of service is not something I agree with.
Apples and oranges. there is a tendancy to compare a speech issue to what the law actually is regarding a non-speech issue. The gay wedding cake issue is not about speech, the baker didnt deny the gay couple any free speech rights. The baker was also not playing cop, businesses generally have a right to refuse services (not that I am wholly in agreement with this), and there are exceptions to that, the case concerns how far those exceptions go. About the issue regarding legality of acts in relation to speech, For instance, you have every right to suggest that say, driving 200 mph on residential streets should be legal, that its not legal does not mean your free speech rights have been violated to hold your own opinion on this matter. Free speech does not give you the right to do things that you can use your free speech rights to advocate should be legal. Its important with the wedding cake issue, was that they were not refusing service to all gays for any service, only the cake which was being used for the weddings. Obviously, to refuse service to gays for say, table seating in a restaurant, is a situation with different circumstances. Not all christians support the idea of refusing service to gays on the issue of providing a cake, basically becuase many christians have a view that its not our position to judge them, even though it is against the tenants of the religion. Not all christian denominations oppose gay unions, either, if you are gay there are several Christian denominations to choose from that would accept you and hold your ceremony. The people that were pressing these buttons on the gay wedding cake issue had plenty of bakers who would bake a gay wedding cake for them, they actually went from baker to baker to find one who one who would refuse to do it so they could then castigate them. Personally, I do not agree with refusing to make a wedding cake for gays, if I am running a business and someone comes to me wanting a lawful product or service I would not deny it to them on account of their sexual preferences. It is my view that gay marriage should not be legal, you cannot just change the definitions of words. I am supportive of civil unions for gays that give them the same benefits, they can call it a wedding if they want but thats not what it should officially be titled on paper. Yes, its about definitions of words, words do mean things, you cannot call a cat a dog and just change those definitions willy nilly, the very definition of marriage is a union between man and women for the purpose of producing children, it is important that Marriage mean something and have a clear definition for the function it is mean to encourage, to be something that is to promote family values as this is a critical bedrock for a civilization.
People may have different religious views than you, but, so what, its a free country. The manner in which in this society we have this oversensitization to being offended and against someones views and opinions offending someone is being used to shut down free speech and the free expression and exchange of ideas and information. Its actually the worst with the leftists who are most intolerant of anyone who does not agree with their views on matters and use "being offended" by Christians to basically attack and shut down anyone who is a professed Christain from being able to talk about their own beliefs and profess it. There's in an old phrase, I disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it. So many people today, especially those on the left, are becoming increasingly opposed to people being able to express themselves and use their own perverse, twisted and insane defintions of "tolerance" to shut down any dissenting or opposing viewpoints, especially if you are a Christian and someone doesnt like your viewpoints, you are accused and labelled as being "intolerant" and "hateful" just by expressing your own viewpoints and religious ideas, not by trying to shut down others ability to express their own. What is going on here is that "intolerance" is now expressing a view that other people think are offensive, rather than trying to shutdown others peoples ability to express their own views. They have in effect turned everything upside down. Now if it is "tolerant" to suppress and censor anyone who says something you offend with, and "intolerant" for anyone to express views you disagree with. By basically saying that if you disagree with leftist atheists, muslims or whatever, you are somehow "intolerant", leftists are shutting down free speech and claiming to be "tolerant" when in fact they are "intolerant".