That's the same response this question often gets: " there are too many to list". But what I see is that specifics on the real advantages of systemd are missing. No one wants to elaborate on what these "too many to list" advantages are.
It's all hand waving without specifics. Why should I not think that the claimed advantages don't actually exist?
Many of those issues did not require something so intrusive as systemd to solve. OpenRC solves most of them.
Yes, the init.d files are long, but so what? Most users never look at these files, let alone edit them and even for the creators of the files, they are rarely changed.
Most of the int.d scripts on my Gentoo system are less than 100 lines, with a lot of them 20-30 lines.
Real world example: https://www.digitalocean.com/c... This howto tells you to disable firewalld and enable the iptables service because it is easier to set up.
Non-competes and no-poaching clauses are valid for high-ranking executives though,
This is not true. Unlike other states, California has a bright-line rule on non-competes. There are some exceptions, but they concern business owners or partners. Also, as of January 1, any disputes concerning non-competes must be litigated in California courts.
1. Did you not read? Fund the IRS properly and the government could reduce taxes and keep the same level of revenue. Why isn't this happening?
2. The US is not highly taxed in comparison to other western democracies. Wealthy individuals and companies could pay more tax and barely notice it.
3. The US military doesn't need to be funded to the level that it is today. Explain why it should not be cut.
So, yes, if it takes more tax to have a society that protects more than just the wealthy, taxes could be increased.
You cannot read that graph. It doesn't say what you think it says, and, even though my family income is probably in the top 10%, we don't pay 20-25% of our gross income in federal income taxes.
The big, big issue that needs to be dealt with is: why does healthcare cost so much in the USA? Care to explain that one? If you want to claim it is better than in other countries, back that up with statistics on life expectancy, medical outcomes, etc..
But back to my central point, which you diverted me from. What I think you understand by "limited government" is not the objective of the wealthy backers of the Republicans: instead, their objective is a government that is hobbled and unable to perform its primary mission. Without sufficient funds, the government cannot collect taxes allowing people (primarily the wealthy) to cheat on their taxes. Without sufficient funds, the government cannot enforce laws designed to protect the environment, to protect employees, to protect the weaker members of society, etc..
Their idea of limited government is one that is incapable of anything except waging war and putting more money into the bank accounts of the wealthy.
If you ran a business where you knew with absolute certainty that, if you hired more people, you would make an additional profit of 6 times the cost of hiring those people, would you hire them? If so, why does the IRS not have sufficient inspectors?
What you just did is to confirm that you are out of step with the party that you apparently support.
I will reiterate what I started out with: you are in denial about the chance of replacing this congressman with someone more reasonable. Or, if not in denial, you are dissembling.
You haven't explained how you will be able to override the effects of the money spent by the Mercers and the Koch brothers.
Since you seem to say limited government is a very bad idea,
What's really going on is that you are pushing a strawman under the guise of "trying to understand my position".
My point was not that unlimited government was a good idea. Instead, my point was that when Republicans talk about "limited government", they don't really mean limited government: instead, they mean a government that does not have the resources to function properly.
The world is grey, not black and white. Some rules are required, some are not. In general, I think that we should not constrain how people live their lives as long as it doesn't affect other people.
But let's be clear: some rules represent freedoms. For example, rules that require registrars to issue marriage licenses grant the freedom to marry to certain couples.
As technology advances, we need rules to adapt. For example, before the era of roads, we did not need rules to define which side of the road one should drive on. I think that you would agree that such rules are required now.
So, now that I have given you my point of view, how about you answer my question.
If you are against "rules", please tell me why I should not come round to your house (or is it your mothers basement?) and kill you, without fear of consequences.
In your reply, please use the context of Republican support for laws concerning what products I can grow in my garden and eat or smoke and the rollback of environmental regulations that are aimed at preventing mining and other activities from having impact on the people who live near mines and on society in general.
As the AC already pointed out Authoritarianism does not necessarily mean more rules.
But, I'll acknowledge that it was perhaps the wrong term to use in this context. Would it make you happy if I replaced "authoritarian" with "even more in thrall to the rich and powerful at the expense of 99.99% of the population"?
"Limited government" is really just code for "a government that cannot protect its ordinary citizens".
On behalf of Republicans everywhere, I'd like to apologize for the fact that our party includes some idiots like this congressman. We're working on replacing these fools.
You are in denial. The "idiots" are the Republican party now, including the "useful idiots" like yourself.
You may think that you can replace people like this congressman, but the Mercers' and Koch Brothers' money will ensure that he gets replaced by someone even more authoritarian.
But the SF court case will establish a record that GEMSA will find more difficult to get delisted, even in Australia.
I don't think that it is libellous to report on the SF case. Assuming the EFF wins the case, it would be a factual statement to say (hypothetically) "a court in the USA agreed with the EFF that GEMSA's patent 6,690,400 is stupid".
And yet the numbers are clear that Edge is superior.
... because Microsoft would never cheat? Microsoft would never pick a set of tests that favour its own browser, or even put code into its OS to make the competition less efficient?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the same response this question often gets: " there are too many to list". But what I see is that specifics on the real advantages of systemd are missing. No one wants to elaborate on what these "too many to list" advantages are.
It's all hand waving without specifics. Why should I not think that the claimed advantages don't actually exist?
Many of those issues did not require something so intrusive as systemd to solve. OpenRC solves most of them.
Yes, the init.d files are long, but so what? Most users never look at these files, let alone edit them and even for the creators of the files, they are rarely changed.
Most of the int.d scripts on my Gentoo system are less than 100 lines, with a lot of them 20-30 lines.
It wasn't a free choice. The fact that Gnome3 requires systemd was a significant influence.
Badly-written code is badly-written code.
Yes, the service files may be easier to write, but how many people actually write init scripts?
Real world example:
https://www.digitalocean.com/c...
This howto tells you to disable firewalld and enable the iptables service because it is easier to set up.
Personally, I am still trying to figure out what real problem it solves.
Every claim for systemd seems to be that it solves things that are simply not real issues.
Anyone?
The one real problem it seems to solve is: how does RedHat become the company that controls the architecture of all Linux distros.
My comment wasn't really a hypothetical:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Adding ethylene glycol to white wine improves its taste, but I doubt that you really want to drink it.
This is not true. Unlike other states, California has a bright-line rule on non-competes. There are some exceptions, but they concern business owners or partners. Also, as of January 1, any disputes concerning non-competes must be litigated in California courts.
But Tesla is in CA, where non-compete agreements are largely void.
1. Did you not read? Fund the IRS properly and the government could reduce taxes and keep the same level of revenue. Why isn't this happening?
2. The US is not highly taxed in comparison to other western democracies. Wealthy individuals and companies could pay more tax and barely notice it.
3. The US military doesn't need to be funded to the level that it is today. Explain why it should not be cut.
So, yes, if it takes more tax to have a society that protects more than just the wealthy, taxes could be increased.
You cannot read that graph. It doesn't say what you think it says, and, even though my family income is probably in the top 10%, we don't pay 20-25% of our gross income in federal income taxes.
The big, big issue that needs to be dealt with is: why does healthcare cost so much in the USA? Care to explain that one? If you want to claim it is better than in other countries, back that up with statistics on life expectancy, medical outcomes, etc..
Oh, really
But back to my central point, which you diverted me from. What I think you understand by "limited government" is not the objective of the wealthy backers of the Republicans: instead, their objective is a government that is hobbled and unable to perform its primary mission. Without sufficient funds, the government cannot collect taxes allowing people (primarily the wealthy) to cheat on their taxes. Without sufficient funds, the government cannot enforce laws designed to protect the environment, to protect employees, to protect the weaker members of society, etc..
Their idea of limited government is one that is incapable of anything except waging war and putting more money into the bank accounts of the wealthy.
If you ran a business where you knew with absolute certainty that, if you hired more people, you would make an additional profit of 6 times the cost of hiring those people, would you hire them? If so, why does the IRS not have sufficient inspectors?
So those anti-regulation Republicans will shun this, right?
Obligatory Little Britain
What you just did is to confirm that you are out of step with the party that you apparently support.
I will reiterate what I started out with: you are in denial about the chance of replacing this congressman with someone more reasonable. Or, if not in denial, you are dissembling.
You haven't explained how you will be able to override the effects of the money spent by the Mercers and the Koch brothers.
What's really going on is that you are pushing a strawman under the guise of "trying to understand my position".
My point was not that unlimited government was a good idea. Instead, my point was that when Republicans talk about "limited government", they don't really mean limited government: instead, they mean a government that does not have the resources to function properly.
The world is grey, not black and white. Some rules are required, some are not. In general, I think that we should not constrain how people live their lives as long as it doesn't affect other people.
But let's be clear: some rules represent freedoms. For example, rules that require registrars to issue marriage licenses grant the freedom to marry to certain couples.
As technology advances, we need rules to adapt. For example, before the era of roads, we did not need rules to define which side of the road one should drive on. I think that you would agree that such rules are required now.
So, now that I have given you my point of view, how about you answer my question.
If you are against "rules", please tell me why I should not come round to your house (or is it your mothers basement?) and kill you, without fear of consequences.
In your reply, please use the context of Republican support for laws concerning what products I can grow in my garden and eat or smoke and the rollback of environmental regulations that are aimed at preventing mining and other activities from having impact on the people who live near mines and on society in general.
The AC explained it well.
I'll go back to my prior statement: you are just one of the "useful idiots".
As the AC already pointed out Authoritarianism does not necessarily mean more rules.
But, I'll acknowledge that it was perhaps the wrong term to use in this context. Would it make you happy if I replaced "authoritarian" with "even more in thrall to the rich and powerful at the expense of 99.99% of the population"?
"Limited government" is really just code for "a government that cannot protect its ordinary citizens".
You are in denial. The "idiots" are the Republican party now, including the "useful idiots" like yourself.
You may think that you can replace people like this congressman, but the Mercers' and Koch Brothers' money will ensure that he gets replaced by someone even more authoritarian.
You certainly don't have to rent DVDs but, guess what, your DVD rental history is protected.
But the SF court case will establish a record that GEMSA will find more difficult to get delisted, even in Australia.
I don't think that it is libellous to report on the SF case. Assuming the EFF wins the case, it would be a factual statement to say (hypothetically) "a court in the USA agreed with the EFF that GEMSA's patent 6,690,400 is stupid".
"It's dead Jim ..."
Even that statement isn't true: prisons can institute forced labor.