Having a duopoly is "unfair competition", so get that phrases out. When you have a duopoly and refuse to give the services that the town wants what should the town do, shrug and say OK? It is not like Wilson just woke up and said, you know we should build our own, no, they went to TWC first and TWC said nope, we will not provide these services.
That is not what is happening at all. They borrowed the money, and the paid service is paying the borrowed money back. The townsfolk themselves are not paying for it. If it did not work you would have an argument, but thus far it has worked, and therefore they are not.
Paid or not makes a HUGE difference. Free services are tax supported, paid subscriptions pay for themselves. If you cant raise constant taxes then a free solution will fail, and it is hard to raise reoccurring taxes. So you are really comparing apples and oranges.
Ahh, no. Exactly the opposite. But if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy and think you won because you didn't quite understand what I said, that's fine. It would be my loss to participate further, just as I said earlier.
and the next time such an issue came up I lost nothing by not being an active participant in the dog and pony show the council was being put through. Were I one of the warm-fuzzy feel-good nitwits, I'd have gotten a great deal of warm-fuzzy feel-good goose bumps all over and feel so happy -- while actually accomplishing nothing.
Actually, he is correct. You just showed you are not currently active. He did not say you were never active, but that you are not currently active.
This is only partly true. You only have to pay American taxes on anything you make OVER 90k US. If you are making less than 90k you dont have to pay US taxes on it.
You want a lot of dead presidents dont you? The president has all that security because without it there is a god chance someone would kill him, regardless of who the president is.
Depends on what you are talking about. The OP implied he was responsible for the initialization of it, not its continued use. Of course, now that we know he knows, he is responsible for changing it, or allowing it to keep running.
Fallacies. Your entire argument is based on the faulty assumption that just because you are president you magically know about absolutely every single initiative put in place by absolutely every agency under your purview.
Systemd does multiple things and does them poorer then what they replaced, therefore it does not do one thing,
I know very little about init, or Systemd,.
This right here goes to the very heart of your problem.
Then this little gem
It is smarter, faster, and conceptually better in every conceivable way
So you know nothing about them, but you know systemd does everything better in every conceivable way. Such as binary logging that you probably not be able read if you have to boot from disk. The scope of what you understand and what you think the system needs to be able to do is limited, and therefore your capability to answer reasonably is as well.
Much of the rest of Systemd is a result of the fact that any init system will have to touch on all of these other areas of the system. Init has to handle logging
Then why did it not handle it before, assuming you mean it has to handle it as journald does now. If it worked without it before then it is not a requirement. Why does init have to handle ntpd?
Again with the fallacies. You present evidence that I am wrong then I can change my mind, unlike it seems you. However all you do is give half truths and attack anyone who disagrees with you.
So it, by design, tries to do multiple things, which is the violation in UNIX principle that most people mention. We got atleast 3 things it ties to do, just in the base installation. Several of those things have cause numerous non recoverable errors in the system.
He did no such thing, he tried to redefine what the anti-systemd people were saying and then attacked them by saying they are all old and conservative, not wanting to change.
Its one tool, that does many things and does them typically poorly compared to the replacement tools. Systemd does multiple things and does them poorer then what they replaced, therefore it does not do one thing, let alone well. He is trying to redefine systemd away from being the tool and just being a repository, which utterly fails due to some components requiring others in systemd.
Pretty much every person who makes the claim that it violates the UNIX philosophy state that it is because of do one thing do it well. It looks monolithic because it things are required, things that dont even have to be used is still required to be installed and running on the system. Sure I can change journald so it does not write to files and use syslog, but journald still has to be there and running.
So you like having useless software always running on your machines, that you cannot get rid of, or absolutely turn off? It also still violates do one thing and do it well because it tries to do many things, and seems to do them poorly.
You can use syslog but you cannot get rid of journald, it has to be there running, increasing overhead. This is not, and has never been about learning something knew, that is nothing more than a fallacy created by the pro systemd movement to attack the people who dislike it.
Slashdot Mirror
Having a duopoly is "unfair competition", so get that phrases out. When you have a duopoly and refuse to give the services that the town wants what should the town do, shrug and say OK? It is not like Wilson just woke up and said, you know we should build our own, no, they went to TWC first and TWC said nope, we will not provide these services.
That is not what is happening at all. They borrowed the money, and the paid service is paying the borrowed money back. The townsfolk themselves are not paying for it. If it did not work you would have an argument, but thus far it has worked, and therefore they are not.
Paid or not makes a HUGE difference. Free services are tax supported, paid subscriptions pay for themselves. If you cant raise constant taxes then a free solution will fail, and it is hard to raise reoccurring taxes. So you are really comparing apples and oranges.
Soo.....you proved my point.
Ahh, no. Exactly the opposite. But if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy and think you won because you didn't quite understand what I said, that's fine. It would be my loss to participate further, just as I said earlier.
and the next time such an issue came up I lost nothing by not being an active participant in the dog and pony show the council was being put through. Were I one of the warm-fuzzy feel-good nitwits, I'd have gotten a great deal of warm-fuzzy feel-good goose bumps all over and feel so happy -- while actually accomplishing nothing.
Actually, he is correct. You just showed you are not currently active. He did not say you were never active, but that you are not currently active.
This is only partly true. You only have to pay American taxes on anything you make OVER 90k US. If you are making less than 90k you dont have to pay US taxes on it.
Promises of relative safety. That is the problem, people think when people say that there is relative safety that there is absolute safety.
You want a lot of dead presidents dont you? The president has all that security because without it there is a god chance someone would kill him, regardless of who the president is.
Depends on what you are talking about. The OP implied he was responsible for the initialization of it, not its continued use. Of course, now that we know he knows, he is responsible for changing it, or allowing it to keep running.
Fallacies. Your entire argument is based on the faulty assumption that just because you are president you magically know about absolutely every single initiative put in place by absolutely every agency under your purview.
Hope...change....whatever.
Any excuse is given to erode civil liberties. If it wasn't drugs, it would have been something else.
A U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration program set up in 2008 to
But hey, keep blaming the person you probably dont like for the things that happened under the person you probably do like.
But you get it in shared articles as well. They tend to include "but he never guessed this would happen"
But where did they say they had a "true" flag?
Exactly, dont like the political/religious message so flag it false and less people will see it.
When you are administering machines you need to be able to have control over said machines.
And each utility is requires cross dependencies in coreutils? and coreutils is not just the package name put the tool?
Systemd does multiple things and does them poorer then what they replaced, therefore it does not do one thing,
I know very little about init, or Systemd, .
This right here goes to the very heart of your problem.
Then this little gem
It is smarter, faster, and conceptually better in every conceivable way
So you know nothing about them, but you know systemd does everything better in every conceivable way. Such as binary logging that you probably not be able read if you have to boot from disk. The scope of what you understand and what you think the system needs to be able to do is limited, and therefore your capability to answer reasonably is as well.
Much of the rest of Systemd is a result of the fact that any init system will have to touch on all of these other areas of the system. Init has to handle logging
Then why did it not handle it before, assuming you mean it has to handle it as journald does now. If it worked without it before then it is not a requirement. Why does init have to handle ntpd?
Again with the fallacies. You present evidence that I am wrong then I can change my mind, unlike it seems you. However all you do is give half truths and attack anyone who disagrees with you.
You sure do like creating false dilemmas dont you?
So it, by design, tries to do multiple things, which is the violation in UNIX principle that most people mention. We got atleast 3 things it ties to do, just in the base installation. Several of those things have cause numerous non recoverable errors in the system.
He did no such thing, he tried to redefine what the anti-systemd people were saying and then attacked them by saying they are all old and conservative, not wanting to change.
Systemd does startup, it does logging, it does ntpd, it manages processes.. What do you think it does that is just one thing?
Its one tool, that does many things and does them typically poorly compared to the replacement tools. Systemd does multiple things and does them poorer then what they replaced, therefore it does not do one thing, let alone well. He is trying to redefine systemd away from being the tool and just being a repository, which utterly fails due to some components requiring others in systemd.
Pretty much every person who makes the claim that it violates the UNIX philosophy state that it is because of do one thing do it well. It looks monolithic because it things are required, things that dont even have to be used is still required to be installed and running on the system. Sure I can change journald so it does not write to files and use syslog, but journald still has to be there and running.
So you like having useless software always running on your machines, that you cannot get rid of, or absolutely turn off? It also still violates do one thing and do it well because it tries to do many things, and seems to do them poorly.
You can use syslog but you cannot get rid of journald, it has to be there running, increasing overhead. This is not, and has never been about learning something knew, that is nothing more than a fallacy created by the pro systemd movement to attack the people who dislike it.