After a successful IT job are you in a position to honestly say not a single photo (or thumbnail) was displayed, not a snippet of private text was displayed, even for a moment? If not,then (perhaps) there are ways to refine the technique.
That's easy to say if you're in a sysadmin role that requires clear, defined tasks. It's a lot more difficult if you're in a helpdesk support role, where you might get a problem thrown your way like, "My Microsoft Word file looks funny. Can you take a look?" How are you going to solve that without looking at their Word file?
Eh, minor quibble, but part of the problem is that when you're troubleshooting, you sometimes need to be using the user's exact configuration. Someone calls up with a browser problem, if you load a clean profile, you might find that there's no problem because the problem is in the profile.
Don't get too frustrated. There are some people who just aren't going to be happy no matter what you do. And it takes time to rebuild trust. Removing DevShare was a solid start to rebuilding that trust.
My concern about the IoT is not just security and privacy, but with those things as a function of overall management. Let's say for example that my coffee maker is now connecting to the Internet. I now probably have to set up a new account on some web portal run by my coffee maker's manufacturer. Is that site secure? Are they using your email for spam? Is that site leaking privacy information about you?
Even if those concerns are laid to rest, it's still just another account on another website I need to manage. I don't want more accounts, and I especially don't want more accounts on random manufacturer's "cloud-controller" websites for little doodads. And finally, if there is a requirement that the device be controlled from the manufacturer's website or "cloud controller" service, what happens when the manufacturer goes out of business, or when they just decide that they don't want to support that model anymore?
Still, it's an indication that carriers and ISPs are not being completely honest. They basically keep claiming that they need special protections, they need the ability to throttle and limit service, and that services like Netflix can't perform because it's simply not possible to deliver the bandwidth people are demanding. They imply (I'm not sure they've said it outright) that it's not a problem of their unwillingness to upgrade their network, but that people's expectations are just out of whack-- that people using more than a few gigabytes per month are bad actors, using up all the bandwidth, and that there is not any possible way for them to fulfill the demands on their network.
But now they're saying that everything is fine, so long as they can cut Netflix out of the market and take those profits for themselves. If they're allowed to have a monopoly, then suddenly all the technical problems go away.
Yes, it was clearly the local office's fault for not entering it into their system that you weren't supposed to get a rental fee...
Except that obviously wasn't the problem, because they did put it into the system, which is why you didn't get charged for the first month. I had similar problems with Time Warner Cable when I bought my own modem. Every once in a while, the fee would get tacked back on and I'd have to call in and complain to get the charge removed. This only makes sense if they have someone or something going through records periodically, adding the fee back on without regard to whether the fee was supposed to be charged.
What was even more frustrating about my experience was, whenever I called for support because my connection was down, they would somehow insist that I needed a TWC modem. Once, they insisted that I couldn't have Internet because I didn't have a modem. A few times they said that they couldn't support me because I didn't have a modem owned by TWC, and they offered to send me out a new one. Once, they told me that outage was because the modem I had was not an approved model, even though it was the exact model they had recommended.
Maybe it's just bad training, but that's not really an excuse.
There have been a lot of people who believe that the machinery of the Democratic Party (party officials and such) want Clinton to win, are in cahoots with the Clinton campaign, and have been trying to rig the new coverage, debates, and elections. That may be a crazy conspiracy theory, but it is what some people seem to think is going on.
If you believe that, it doesn't need to be Clinton or her staffers rigging things. The people running the elections are already trying to get her elected.
I had the same basic question, "What is the benefit here?" Skimming through the linked article, there is a sort of an answer:
Underwater data centers can be cooled by the surrounding water, and could also be powered by wave or tidal energy
I don't know if it's really much more efficient than having normal cooling systems and power generated by an external tidal power system, but it might not be completely pointless and stupid.
It seems to me that this is not exactly relevant to the change. Apple had a free broadcast Internet radio service which they've moved to include into a paid subscription steaming service. The issue of "buying" never entered into it.
There have actually been events where your argument would be more applicable. For example, Microsoft ran a service where you could "purchase" DRM-protected music. They then shut down that service and all the music people had "purchased" became useless. That's a good reason to talk about buying CDs rather than subscription services.
What we have here is more comparable to, if a normal free FM radio station decided to move to SiriusXM, and you now had to pay to listen. It's reasonable to be displeased with the change, but it doesn't really make sense to be like, "that's why I purchase all of my radio stations, so that they can never be taken away from me."
As disappointed as I've been about Slashdot's turn towards some spammy content, I was even more disappointed by SourceForge. The site that had been a trusted source for FOSS started bundling spyware in the installers they distributed.
To me, this strikes of a feel-good, circle-jerk law.
More likely, it's the sort of law that makes it so a prosecutor can plausibly accuse innocent people of doing something illegal so that they can have leverage. The idea is that you make all kinds of things illegal. When you want someone to cooperate, you find some law that they technically violated and threaten that, if they don't cooperate, you'll prosecute them for some weird obscure law.
What does make a person qualified? It seems like it's the sort of thing a layman can think about. I don't need to be an expert in any particular field to have my opinions on the value of nuclear weapons to be justified. Certainly some people's opinions are more valid than others, but you should be able to have views on a field without having a PhD in that particular field.
There are some topics where having a PhD might not help at all.
Not only is it possibly your genes being spread around, but possibly also your memes. I'd kind of like something of me to survive, even if only some of the ideas I shared with humanity.
The most popular candidate in the Republican party said he would impose a 35% business tax on American businesses manufacturing outside of the United States.
On American businesses manufacturing outside of the United States...? So then are you also going to tax non-American businesses that manufacture outside of the United States? Or are you just encouraging businesses to officially station their headquarters outside of the United States so that they won't be considered an "American business"?
Well you have to figure, as far as Netflix is concerned, the best thing is to have all content available to all people all the time. Ignoring licensing costs and storage costs for a second, it would be to their benefit to just store every video ever made and make it available to any subscriber that wants to watch it, since that would increase the utility to the subscriber, thereby increasing the likelihood of keeping the subscription.
Anything contrary to that is probably going to be a cost-saving measure or a restriction demanded by the IP owner. I very much doubt that their region-based limitations are a cost-saving measure.
It's easier for someone without those "resources" to do such a thing because they can't be picked out from the crowd. Snowden didn't have any red flags in his life to be singled out...
Right, Snowden didn't have any huge red flags indicating that he was a security concern. Whereas Russia always makes sure their spies are very clearly spies and have tons of red flags indicating that.
... making any to match him would mean not trusting anyone. To stop someone like him you'd have to live in an absolute dictatorship with censored media and summary executions.
Here's the interesting thing, though: you're talking about a security agency that taps our phone calls and reads our emails because they don't trust anyone. So what are they doing trusting people? How did some random independent contractor have so much access and so little oversight that he could pull all of this information without raising red flags? And if they aren't able to secure all this information, they maybe they shouldn't be creating and consolidating it all into a single easy-to-search system.
The most ironic part of your post is the suggestion that there needs to be an oppressive regime in order to stop Snowden, but Snowden did what he did in response to what he considered to be dangerous, corrupt, and potentially oppressive behavior by the government. You don't need a dictatorship to stop Snowden, but you need an open and free society to prevent Snowden from becoming a thing. To stop him, you just need to stop giving random people full admin access to your super-secret nefarious surveillance systems.
Sure, but... are any of us actually confused by the statement that he's building something comparable to "Jarvis" from Iron Man? When I read that, I assume that means he's basically trying to make a Siri-like "AI" that can be a little more helpful.
I've put a fair amount of thought into this in the past, and it seems to me there are various things a Siri-alike could do, if hooked up and programmed to do it. For example, based on travel patterns, it could note that you almost always go home after work at around 6:30pm. Through the GPS in your device, it could tell when you're close to home, and automatically set a series of conditions for your arrival-- including things like lighting level, music, temperature control, etc. There are a bunch of things like this that require coordinating across devices, which I don't think Siri/Echo really do yet.
Another thing that doesn't seem like it would be too hard to do would be to make it more proactive. Theoretically let's say it has an appointment in your calendar that's 2 hours away. It has access to traffic information for the travel from one location to another, and sees that there's a half hour delay. So about 2.5 hours before the appointment, it automatically gives you a heads-up. "You'd better leave now, or you're going to be late." Or maybe it could monitor your washing machine and say, "You left some clothes in the washer a couple of days ago. You should probably move them to the dryer to avoid getting moldy and gross." These would have to be designed very carefully to make them useful instead of being annoying.
It could also possibly do things for you. Like say, "Hey, your mother's birthday is coming up in 2 weeks, and you usually order her flowers. Would you like me to order her the same bouquet as last year?" There are various possible problems with this, from having bug cause the AI to spend more money than intended, to the social aspects of having some of these things done automatically.
So what I'm getting at here is that there's a lot of stuff that these "AI" systems could potentially do, but we don't have them do because there are loads of potential problems, and it needs to be tested first. In some ways, I think it makes sense to start by having a rich tech guy pay for his own prototype, and figure out what he finds useful vs. annoying. It seems like a reasonable way to work out some of the kinks before you even get to normal testing.
Shell scripts are junior admin material already. To a degree, they're power user material. If your admins aren't even up to power user level then my point stands.
Again, this is apparently just over your head. The question is not whether a theoretical smart, qualified, careful, competent person should be able to handle it. The question is whether you want to bet the future of your multimillion dollar business on the competent execution of a particular action of any single individual. The answer you'll get will often be, "not if I can avoid it." The idea is to make things as pre-built, standardized, and fool-proof as possible so that you're only relying on people to be competent as much as is absolutely unavoidably necessary.
Because if you've ever actually run anything in your life, you know that most "qualified" people are still not good at their jobs, and even those relatively rare individuals who are very good at their jobs make incredibly stupid mistakes every once in a while.
I'm not advocating for systemd. Just pointing out why "enterprise ready" to some extent can mean, "doesn't require any special genius to operate".
Translation, the business guy has hired cheap monkeys who turned out not to be able to handle any difficulty.
That's a really dumb translation, and shows you missed the whole point. You might get how the tech works, but you have no idea how to run things if you think the solution is to hire more expensive people. Sometimes you hire very expensive monkeys on the idea that they're brilliant and "worth it", and then they still make a mess of things. If you've actually had to do hiring, you probably know that it's very difficult to find good people, and "expensive" doesn't always mean "good".
And really, it doesn't make sense to always hire very experienced people. To keep things running well, you need a mix. You get some senior people to do the difficult stuff, and then you get some junior people to handle the stuff that no senior person is going to want to waste their time managing. And then you train the junior people as you go, which means at some point, you're going to have to hand off some of the senior work to the junior people, even if they're not 100% "ready", because sometimes that's how you learn.
It may be true that anyone can captain a ship in calm seas, but part of the goal of a business is to engineer the seas to be calm. A lot of the "old salts" get off on being the guy who heroically and astoundingly manages to patch up the Titanic before it goes down, but the business-oriented guy just wants to steer around the icebergs.
Without something like systemd, Linux cannot be enterprise ready.
Why?
"Rolling your own" scripts for failover and redundancy is the worst idea when more than one admin has to diagnose problems at 2:00 AM.
Only if your goal is to hire sysadmins too stupid to comprehend shell scripts.
And there you've just answered your own question as to "why?" Not that their goal is to hire stupid sysadmins, but their goal is, to some extent, to avoid relying on people being particularly competent.
I see this as part of the disconnect between techies and business/manager types, and you're only illustrating it. For those who are pretty good at the tech stuff, they think, "That's ok, I'll just write a custom script, and if something breaks I'll figure it out." Meanwhile, the business guy has been burned by that too many times. For the handful of competent techs he's hired, he's also hired a couple incompetent guys, as well as some who were fairly competent but not as smart as they thought they were. He's seen a tech write that custom script, he's seen it work well enough for a while, and then seen it turn into a disaster as soon as someone else had to touch it.
It's hard to run a business relying on everyone to be a bunch of super-hero super-geniuses. Businesses want a solution that's drop-dead simple. They want things to be used in the way they're supposed to, and to be fully supported. They don't like customization unless it's something that was designed to be customizable, and supported in that customization. They want it all to be documented and clear, and they don't like relying on people to be good at their jobs, because no matter how hard you try to hire good people and how much you're willing to pay them, most people turn out not to be particularly good at their jobs.
I'm not saying these are unbreakable rules, but there is a sort of tendency. The point is, larger and established businesses don't really want a clever hack that saves them a few thousands of dollars at the risk of a failure that would cost millions. Whether systemd is relevant to that issue-- I don't want to get into that discussion. But you're asking why you need something "the point and click Microsoft-or-Apple-fanboy-wannabe-sysadmin" can figure out in order to be considered by some people to be "Enterprise ready", then that's why.
Scientists are raised to be skeptical, so you're not going to convince them by being a salesman, nor by trying to recruit them into a religious cult.
with this:
Science is a process primarily done by scientists, who are human.
Scientists are human, which means they can be convinced by good salesmen and charismatic leaders. No one is immune. And the phrase
"scientists are raised to be skeptical" is just silly, as though scientists are a special group, raised from birth to be scientists. They're just people who decide to do some kind of science. There isn't even necessarily a consistent educational background. Anyone can do science, and anyone can be a scientist.
So the decision of what's "good science" can't be based off of whatever some group of scientists find convincing, or else a bullshit artist selling bullshit can be "good science".
Are you actually asking for "the [hope] at developing certain/reliable knowledge"? From science? You don't get that. In the 20th Century, a whole lot of fundamental concepts, like space, time, and causality, were found to be wanting. No knowledge is certain and/or reliable.
We can quibble about the exact working, but the point of the scientific method is the attempt to remove sources of assumption and error. Your model "Come up with an idea, test it a little, and then determine whether it's true by whether you can convince people," is basically superstition followed by a popularity contest.
Scientists are raised to be skeptical, so you're not going to convince them by being a salesman, nor by trying to recruit them into a religious cult.
Ah, so science is really about "scientists". There are a special group of "scientists" who are just too smart to be convinced of anything untrue, because of their special indoctrination. Therefore, we common people should just believe what these special priests... sorry, not priests, I mean scientists. We should just believe that what these special scientists tell us, on faith that they can't be mistaken or fooled.
Sorry, no. Science is about the process, and not about a reliance on a special class of people to intuit truth.
Yes, that part of science is political but it is still part of the scientific process.
Again, if you're using "scientific" as a sort of modifier to talk about the political/cultural process of passing down ideas, I'm fine with that. But science qua science should be focused on "What can I prove?" and not "What can I convince people of?"
Slashdot Mirror
After a successful IT job are you in a position to honestly say not a single photo (or thumbnail) was displayed, not a snippet of private text was displayed, even for a moment? If not,then (perhaps) there are ways to refine the technique.
That's easy to say if you're in a sysadmin role that requires clear, defined tasks. It's a lot more difficult if you're in a helpdesk support role, where you might get a problem thrown your way like, "My Microsoft Word file looks funny. Can you take a look?" How are you going to solve that without looking at their Word file?
Eh, minor quibble, but part of the problem is that when you're troubleshooting, you sometimes need to be using the user's exact configuration. Someone calls up with a browser problem, if you load a clean profile, you might find that there's no problem because the problem is in the profile.
Don't get too frustrated. There are some people who just aren't going to be happy no matter what you do. And it takes time to rebuild trust. Removing DevShare was a solid start to rebuilding that trust.
My concern about the IoT is not just security and privacy, but with those things as a function of overall management. Let's say for example that my coffee maker is now connecting to the Internet. I now probably have to set up a new account on some web portal run by my coffee maker's manufacturer. Is that site secure? Are they using your email for spam? Is that site leaking privacy information about you?
Even if those concerns are laid to rest, it's still just another account on another website I need to manage. I don't want more accounts, and I especially don't want more accounts on random manufacturer's "cloud-controller" websites for little doodads. And finally, if there is a requirement that the device be controlled from the manufacturer's website or "cloud controller" service, what happens when the manufacturer goes out of business, or when they just decide that they don't want to support that model anymore?
Still, it's an indication that carriers and ISPs are not being completely honest. They basically keep claiming that they need special protections, they need the ability to throttle and limit service, and that services like Netflix can't perform because it's simply not possible to deliver the bandwidth people are demanding. They imply (I'm not sure they've said it outright) that it's not a problem of their unwillingness to upgrade their network, but that people's expectations are just out of whack-- that people using more than a few gigabytes per month are bad actors, using up all the bandwidth, and that there is not any possible way for them to fulfill the demands on their network.
But now they're saying that everything is fine, so long as they can cut Netflix out of the market and take those profits for themselves. If they're allowed to have a monopoly, then suddenly all the technical problems go away.
Yes, it was clearly the local office's fault for not entering it into their system that you weren't supposed to get a rental fee...
Except that obviously wasn't the problem, because they did put it into the system, which is why you didn't get charged for the first month. I had similar problems with Time Warner Cable when I bought my own modem. Every once in a while, the fee would get tacked back on and I'd have to call in and complain to get the charge removed. This only makes sense if they have someone or something going through records periodically, adding the fee back on without regard to whether the fee was supposed to be charged.
What was even more frustrating about my experience was, whenever I called for support because my connection was down, they would somehow insist that I needed a TWC modem. Once, they insisted that I couldn't have Internet because I didn't have a modem. A few times they said that they couldn't support me because I didn't have a modem owned by TWC, and they offered to send me out a new one. Once, they told me that outage was because the modem I had was not an approved model, even though it was the exact model they had recommended.
Maybe it's just bad training, but that's not really an excuse.
There have been a lot of people who believe that the machinery of the Democratic Party (party officials and such) want Clinton to win, are in cahoots with the Clinton campaign, and have been trying to rig the new coverage, debates, and elections. That may be a crazy conspiracy theory, but it is what some people seem to think is going on.
If you believe that, it doesn't need to be Clinton or her staffers rigging things. The people running the elections are already trying to get her elected.
Although I have a number of legitimate copies of Win7, I much prefer my pirated copy that disables all updates.
But... but.... then you miss out on all of the advantages of Windows being "genuine". I can't believe you would want to miss out on those advantages!
I had the same basic question, "What is the benefit here?" Skimming through the linked article, there is a sort of an answer:
Underwater data centers can be cooled by the surrounding water, and could also be powered by wave or tidal energy
I don't know if it's really much more efficient than having normal cooling systems and power generated by an external tidal power system, but it might not be completely pointless and stupid.
It seems to me that this is not exactly relevant to the change. Apple had a free broadcast Internet radio service which they've moved to include into a paid subscription steaming service. The issue of "buying" never entered into it.
There have actually been events where your argument would be more applicable. For example, Microsoft ran a service where you could "purchase" DRM-protected music. They then shut down that service and all the music people had "purchased" became useless. That's a good reason to talk about buying CDs rather than subscription services.
What we have here is more comparable to, if a normal free FM radio station decided to move to SiriusXM, and you now had to pay to listen. It's reasonable to be displeased with the change, but it doesn't really make sense to be like, "that's why I purchase all of my radio stations, so that they can never be taken away from me."
As disappointed as I've been about Slashdot's turn towards some spammy content, I was even more disappointed by SourceForge. The site that had been a trusted source for FOSS started bundling spyware in the installers they distributed.
Hopefully this is a good sign.
My school (or maybe just my teacher) thought it would be great an inspirational for the kids to watch the launch. It was quickly turned off.
To me, this strikes of a feel-good, circle-jerk law.
More likely, it's the sort of law that makes it so a prosecutor can plausibly accuse innocent people of doing something illegal so that they can have leverage. The idea is that you make all kinds of things illegal. When you want someone to cooperate, you find some law that they technically violated and threaten that, if they don't cooperate, you'll prosecute them for some weird obscure law.
What does make a person qualified? It seems like it's the sort of thing a layman can think about. I don't need to be an expert in any particular field to have my opinions on the value of nuclear weapons to be justified. Certainly some people's opinions are more valid than others, but you should be able to have views on a field without having a PhD in that particular field.
There are some topics where having a PhD might not help at all.
Not only is it possibly your genes being spread around, but possibly also your memes. I'd kind of like something of me to survive, even if only some of the ideas I shared with humanity.
The most popular candidate in the Republican party said he would impose a 35% business tax on American businesses manufacturing outside of the United States.
On American businesses manufacturing outside of the United States...? So then are you also going to tax non-American businesses that manufacture outside of the United States? Or are you just encouraging businesses to officially station their headquarters outside of the United States so that they won't be considered an "American business"?
Well you have to figure, as far as Netflix is concerned, the best thing is to have all content available to all people all the time. Ignoring licensing costs and storage costs for a second, it would be to their benefit to just store every video ever made and make it available to any subscriber that wants to watch it, since that would increase the utility to the subscriber, thereby increasing the likelihood of keeping the subscription.
Anything contrary to that is probably going to be a cost-saving measure or a restriction demanded by the IP owner. I very much doubt that their region-based limitations are a cost-saving measure.
It's easier for someone without those "resources" to do such a thing because they can't be picked out from the crowd. Snowden didn't have any red flags in his life to be singled out...
Right, Snowden didn't have any huge red flags indicating that he was a security concern. Whereas Russia always makes sure their spies are very clearly spies and have tons of red flags indicating that.
... making any to match him would mean not trusting anyone. To stop someone like him you'd have to live in an absolute dictatorship with censored media and summary executions.
Here's the interesting thing, though: you're talking about a security agency that taps our phone calls and reads our emails because they don't trust anyone. So what are they doing trusting people? How did some random independent contractor have so much access and so little oversight that he could pull all of this information without raising red flags? And if they aren't able to secure all this information, they maybe they shouldn't be creating and consolidating it all into a single easy-to-search system.
The most ironic part of your post is the suggestion that there needs to be an oppressive regime in order to stop Snowden, but Snowden did what he did in response to what he considered to be dangerous, corrupt, and potentially oppressive behavior by the government. You don't need a dictatorship to stop Snowden, but you need an open and free society to prevent Snowden from becoming a thing. To stop him, you just need to stop giving random people full admin access to your super-secret nefarious surveillance systems.
Sure, but... are any of us actually confused by the statement that he's building something comparable to "Jarvis" from Iron Man? When I read that, I assume that means he's basically trying to make a Siri-like "AI" that can be a little more helpful.
I've put a fair amount of thought into this in the past, and it seems to me there are various things a Siri-alike could do, if hooked up and programmed to do it. For example, based on travel patterns, it could note that you almost always go home after work at around 6:30pm. Through the GPS in your device, it could tell when you're close to home, and automatically set a series of conditions for your arrival-- including things like lighting level, music, temperature control, etc. There are a bunch of things like this that require coordinating across devices, which I don't think Siri/Echo really do yet.
Another thing that doesn't seem like it would be too hard to do would be to make it more proactive. Theoretically let's say it has an appointment in your calendar that's 2 hours away. It has access to traffic information for the travel from one location to another, and sees that there's a half hour delay. So about 2.5 hours before the appointment, it automatically gives you a heads-up. "You'd better leave now, or you're going to be late." Or maybe it could monitor your washing machine and say, "You left some clothes in the washer a couple of days ago. You should probably move them to the dryer to avoid getting moldy and gross." These would have to be designed very carefully to make them useful instead of being annoying.
It could also possibly do things for you. Like say, "Hey, your mother's birthday is coming up in 2 weeks, and you usually order her flowers. Would you like me to order her the same bouquet as last year?" There are various possible problems with this, from having bug cause the AI to spend more money than intended, to the social aspects of having some of these things done automatically.
So what I'm getting at here is that there's a lot of stuff that these "AI" systems could potentially do, but we don't have them do because there are loads of potential problems, and it needs to be tested first. In some ways, I think it makes sense to start by having a rich tech guy pay for his own prototype, and figure out what he finds useful vs. annoying. It seems like a reasonable way to work out some of the kinks before you even get to normal testing.
Shell scripts are junior admin material already. To a degree, they're power user material. If your admins aren't even up to power user level then my point stands.
Again, this is apparently just over your head. The question is not whether a theoretical smart, qualified, careful, competent person should be able to handle it. The question is whether you want to bet the future of your multimillion dollar business on the competent execution of a particular action of any single individual. The answer you'll get will often be, "not if I can avoid it." The idea is to make things as pre-built, standardized, and fool-proof as possible so that you're only relying on people to be competent as much as is absolutely unavoidably necessary.
Because if you've ever actually run anything in your life, you know that most "qualified" people are still not good at their jobs, and even those relatively rare individuals who are very good at their jobs make incredibly stupid mistakes every once in a while.
Lift the hood on systemd sometime.
I'm not advocating for systemd. Just pointing out why "enterprise ready" to some extent can mean, "doesn't require any special genius to operate".
Translation, the business guy has hired cheap monkeys who turned out not to be able to handle any difficulty.
That's a really dumb translation, and shows you missed the whole point. You might get how the tech works, but you have no idea how to run things if you think the solution is to hire more expensive people. Sometimes you hire very expensive monkeys on the idea that they're brilliant and "worth it", and then they still make a mess of things. If you've actually had to do hiring, you probably know that it's very difficult to find good people, and "expensive" doesn't always mean "good".
And really, it doesn't make sense to always hire very experienced people. To keep things running well, you need a mix. You get some senior people to do the difficult stuff, and then you get some junior people to handle the stuff that no senior person is going to want to waste their time managing. And then you train the junior people as you go, which means at some point, you're going to have to hand off some of the senior work to the junior people, even if they're not 100% "ready", because sometimes that's how you learn.
It may be true that anyone can captain a ship in calm seas, but part of the goal of a business is to engineer the seas to be calm. A lot of the "old salts" get off on being the guy who heroically and astoundingly manages to patch up the Titanic before it goes down, but the business-oriented guy just wants to steer around the icebergs.
Without something like systemd, Linux cannot be enterprise ready.
Why?
"Rolling your own" scripts for failover and redundancy is the worst idea when more than one admin has to diagnose problems at 2:00 AM.
Only if your goal is to hire sysadmins too stupid to comprehend shell scripts.
And there you've just answered your own question as to "why?" Not that their goal is to hire stupid sysadmins, but their goal is, to some extent, to avoid relying on people being particularly competent.
I see this as part of the disconnect between techies and business/manager types, and you're only illustrating it. For those who are pretty good at the tech stuff, they think, "That's ok, I'll just write a custom script, and if something breaks I'll figure it out." Meanwhile, the business guy has been burned by that too many times. For the handful of competent techs he's hired, he's also hired a couple incompetent guys, as well as some who were fairly competent but not as smart as they thought they were. He's seen a tech write that custom script, he's seen it work well enough for a while, and then seen it turn into a disaster as soon as someone else had to touch it.
It's hard to run a business relying on everyone to be a bunch of super-hero super-geniuses. Businesses want a solution that's drop-dead simple. They want things to be used in the way they're supposed to, and to be fully supported. They don't like customization unless it's something that was designed to be customizable, and supported in that customization. They want it all to be documented and clear, and they don't like relying on people to be good at their jobs, because no matter how hard you try to hire good people and how much you're willing to pay them, most people turn out not to be particularly good at their jobs.
I'm not saying these are unbreakable rules, but there is a sort of tendency. The point is, larger and established businesses don't really want a clever hack that saves them a few thousands of dollars at the risk of a failure that would cost millions. Whether systemd is relevant to that issue-- I don't want to get into that discussion. But you're asking why you need something "the point and click Microsoft-or-Apple-fanboy-wannabe-sysadmin" can figure out in order to be considered by some people to be "Enterprise ready", then that's why.
Compare this:
Scientists are raised to be skeptical, so you're not going to convince them by being a salesman, nor by trying to recruit them into a religious cult.
with this:
Science is a process primarily done by scientists, who are human.
Scientists are human, which means they can be convinced by good salesmen and charismatic leaders. No one is immune. And the phrase "scientists are raised to be skeptical" is just silly, as though scientists are a special group, raised from birth to be scientists. They're just people who decide to do some kind of science. There isn't even necessarily a consistent educational background. Anyone can do science, and anyone can be a scientist.
So the decision of what's "good science" can't be based off of whatever some group of scientists find convincing, or else a bullshit artist selling bullshit can be "good science".
Are you actually asking for "the [hope] at developing certain/reliable knowledge"? From science? You don't get that. In the 20th Century, a whole lot of fundamental concepts, like space, time, and causality, were found to be wanting. No knowledge is certain and/or reliable.
We can quibble about the exact working, but the point of the scientific method is the attempt to remove sources of assumption and error. Your model "Come up with an idea, test it a little, and then determine whether it's true by whether you can convince people," is basically superstition followed by a popularity contest.
Scientists are raised to be skeptical, so you're not going to convince them by being a salesman, nor by trying to recruit them into a religious cult.
Ah, so science is really about "scientists". There are a special group of "scientists" who are just too smart to be convinced of anything untrue, because of their special indoctrination. Therefore, we common people should just believe what these special priests... sorry, not priests, I mean scientists. We should just believe that what these special scientists tell us, on faith that they can't be mistaken or fooled.
Sorry, no. Science is about the process, and not about a reliance on a special class of people to intuit truth.
Yes, that part of science is political but it is still part of the scientific process.
Again, if you're using "scientific" as a sort of modifier to talk about the political/cultural process of passing down ideas, I'm fine with that. But science qua science should be focused on "What can I prove?" and not "What can I convince people of?"