Systemd is the new future toolbox for maintaining and running Linux: All major enterprise Linux distros are using or are about to use systemd. Sure, a few companies will delay their transition to systemd if they have a lot of custom stuff they need to change, but systemd just have so many new awesome features that most will embrace it with joy; systemd simply means faster and better maintenance, and being able to pack more services in each hardware unit.
Those who dislike systemd are just a tiny but vocal minority; they have also spend the last couple of years smearing named open source developers like Lennart Poettering and trash-talking systemd, instead of developing an alternative to systemd. As a group they accept how the most extreme voices against systemd are unopposed, meaning that all the swivel eyed loonies with their paranoid ranting have become spokespersons for them, resulting in that nobody wants to work with them. So not only are the systemd detractors a small group, but they alienate most of the potential developers they could have had.
The end result is that almost nobody works on alternatives to systemd. Critical software like "ConsoleKit" is bit-rotting, nobody tries to help upstream projects supporting anything else but logind, despite that eg. Gnome developers have warned about this for years.
Instead of helping KDE and Gnome supporting non-systemd systems, the systemd detractors just rant on how NSA/The Greys/Poettering are controlling Gnome and KDE, and that everybody should boycot them and use CDE instead.
Like it or not, systemd will be in any Linux distro of importance in the future. Sysvinit (and X) are on life support and will be killed off at first opportunity people get. Even OpenBSD are starting to clone certain parts of systemd, and there is no doubt that all BSD's will have their init-system upgraded to a modern version inspired/cloned from systemd in the upcoming years. It is simply that good.
Systemd is not "that good." As an opponent myself, I am an admin, not a developer. And as an admin, I fail to see what was wrong with the BSD Init system. It works. It's simple. It's good.
And as far as Mr. Poettering goes, I much prefer to trash talk his work. Attacking him, no matter what you may think of him, doesn't get the point across.
So do what I do and buy your Apple products second hand? My 2006 MBP ($200 when I bought it) is still my main laptop, and I have a white MacBook at home for testing purposes (since Apple killed off 32bit support on newer OS X) that was also 200.
Yes you can have Linux without GNU. The GNU components are not required - you can use Linux with other userlands (see Android, Mastodon Linux, and uClinux).
Curious - what are you running on the SGI? I've got two Octanes here with IRIX 6.5.29 (I have the official disk set for.29 from SGI), and for a while I had an O2 with.30 and Gentoo Linux installed. I'm using one of the Octanes as a webserver right now (running a custom compiled Apache 2.4 and PHP 5.5).
I don't have an issue with non-invasive DRM. Don't misunderstand me. I don't like a lot of things that are common in modern setups, and liked how simple things used to be. That doesn't mean that I won't watch a DVD. Because I do. I use Flash to watch Amazon on demand. But I agree that a lot of programs have gotten bloated, either in size or feature bloat. Plus, I don't like the current trend of removing configuration options from everything. And the methods that stay get more and more complicated.
Aside from some GNU software (GNOME in particular), what do you think is going to change that much? And BSD doesn't use most of the GNU software anyway.
Wow....someone asks what they can do about having a software package shoved down there throat and your response is just open wide and swallow? I thought this was supposed to be about freedom. Wait, GNU/Linux is about freedom, as long as it's what they want you to do....
On a more serious note, any software that wants UNIX compatibility will keep supporting SystemV/BSD init. I get the distinct feeling that Oracle and especially the BSD guys don't want anything to do with systemD.
Theoretically that isn't that hard to pull off either, when you think about it. I can have multiple versions of all kinds of things installed in Linux without an issue - look at how kernels get saved in/usr/src, for example. And I know I've installed KDE 3 and 4 side by side, with KDE4 being deployed to/opt/KDE4, and being told to look for all of it's libraries there.
It has nothing to do with GNU (and your probably talking more about the FSF anyway, not the GNU project). But anyway. It's not an open source vs free software issue. It has everything to do with the fact people don't f'ing get what the real problem is. If you buy shitty hardware that's not cooperating with the projects maintaining the OS your going to get shitty support for your hardware. Buy hardware from vendors that actually work with the OS maintainers and you'll get completely different results. The GNU/Linux developers can't support your shitty proprietary hardware because they don't have access to the code, and I damm well know the hardware vendors you buy from won't. They don't support it in Microsoft Windows so what makes you think they'll do a better job in GNU/Linux when GNU/Linux desktop distributions are more bleeding edge?
I'd hardly call HP, Apple, Sun, SGI, Lenovo, and Dell 'shitty' hardware. And from the component perspective, nVidia and AMD are far from 'shitty.'
Licensing is what keeps Linux from supporting a lot of hardware. I can install Solaris 11 on my home desktop, and everything works out of box. Everything. My nVidia GPU, sound, wifi adapter; all of it. I don't get complaints about MP3 or Flash being 'dirty' in Solaris.
I'm going to have to agree with your idea on this one - the GNU ideology is the problem. I don't care about all the politics that RMS does - I want stuff to work. I like a lot of things about Linux, but when it comes down to it, Solaris, BSD, and IRIX are all just as nice for what I'm after.
Which has lead me to advocate against desktop/laptop Linux, and I've even moved away from it on some of my personal servers (work is all still RHEL and Windows, which I can at least count on RHEL 6 to work for quite a while.
Actually, 3.1 doesn't include Internet Explorer either, so it's not vulnerable. I don't know if 16-bit IE (I have a VM with IE 5 on 3.11) is vulnerable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an easy one -
[armanox@rhel7test ~]$ uname -a
Linux rhel7test 3.10.0-123.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon May 5 11:16:57 EDT 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Except, when it comes to Enterprise, Red Hat is the standard.
I bet they'll have to support RHEL6 for many and many years as a lot of companies won't upgrade to RHEL7.
http://boycottsystemd.org/
Systemd is the new future toolbox for maintaining and running Linux: All major enterprise Linux distros are using or are about to use systemd. Sure, a few companies will delay their transition to systemd if they have a lot of custom stuff they need to change, but systemd just have so many new awesome features that most will embrace it with joy; systemd simply means faster and better maintenance, and being able to pack more services in each hardware unit.
Those who dislike systemd are just a tiny but vocal minority; they have also spend the last couple of years smearing named open source developers like Lennart Poettering and trash-talking systemd, instead of developing an alternative to systemd. As a group they accept how the most extreme voices against systemd are unopposed, meaning that all the swivel eyed loonies with their paranoid ranting have become spokespersons for them, resulting in that nobody wants to work with them. So not only are the systemd detractors a small group, but they alienate most of the potential developers they could have had.
The end result is that almost nobody works on alternatives to systemd. Critical software like "ConsoleKit" is bit-rotting, nobody tries to help upstream projects supporting anything else but logind, despite that eg. Gnome developers have warned about this for years.
Instead of helping KDE and Gnome supporting non-systemd systems, the systemd detractors just rant on how NSA/The Greys/Poettering are controlling Gnome and KDE, and that everybody should boycot them and use CDE instead.
Like it or not, systemd will be in any Linux distro of importance in the future. Sysvinit (and X) are on life support and will be killed off at first opportunity people get. Even OpenBSD are starting to clone certain parts of systemd, and there is no doubt that all BSD's will have their init-system upgraded to a modern version inspired/cloned from systemd in the upcoming years. It is simply that good.
Systemd is not "that good." As an opponent myself, I am an admin, not a developer. And as an admin, I fail to see what was wrong with the BSD Init system. It works. It's simple. It's good.
And as far as Mr. Poettering goes, I much prefer to trash talk his work. Attacking him, no matter what you may think of him, doesn't get the point across.
Stable is the word you are looking for.
My gripe is the flat look that's getting pushed into OS X. I'm seriously tired of this plague. I happen to like my 3D composited desktops.
Maybe that secular democracy is why our laws are so fucked up?
Say what? He's either running Windows Vista or Windows 7.
So do what I do and buy your Apple products second hand? My 2006 MBP ($200 when I bought it) is still my main laptop, and I have a white MacBook at home for testing purposes (since Apple killed off 32bit support on newer OS X) that was also 200.
The last thing IT needs is Unions. End of story.
Yes you can have Linux without GNU. The GNU components are not required - you can use Linux with other userlands (see Android, Mastodon Linux, and uClinux).
Curious - what are you running on the SGI? I've got two Octanes here with IRIX 6.5.29 (I have the official disk set for .29 from SGI), and for a while I had an O2 with .30 and Gentoo Linux installed. I'm using one of the Octanes as a webserver right now (running a custom compiled Apache 2.4 and PHP 5.5).
I don't have an issue with non-invasive DRM. Don't misunderstand me. I don't like a lot of things that are common in modern setups, and liked how simple things used to be. That doesn't mean that I won't watch a DVD. Because I do. I use Flash to watch Amazon on demand. But I agree that a lot of programs have gotten bloated, either in size or feature bloat. Plus, I don't like the current trend of removing configuration options from everything. And the methods that stay get more and more complicated.
I've got Firefox 3 running on a 1997 era SGI...
The command lines tools should be from the BSD groups, not GNU.
I'd also be interested in knowing what they dropped. I can give it a test run on IRIX to see if it still builds - I know 2.2 does.
Aside from some GNU software (GNOME in particular), what do you think is going to change that much? And BSD doesn't use most of the GNU software anyway.
Wow....someone asks what they can do about having a software package shoved down there throat and your response is just open wide and swallow? I thought this was supposed to be about freedom. Wait, GNU/Linux is about freedom, as long as it's what they want you to do....
On a more serious note, any software that wants UNIX compatibility will keep supporting SystemV/BSD init. I get the distinct feeling that Oracle and especially the BSD guys don't want anything to do with systemD.
Clearly they use smf right now.
The FSF supports freedom as long as it's their kind of freedom.
Theoretically that isn't that hard to pull off either, when you think about it. I can have multiple versions of all kinds of things installed in Linux without an issue - look at how kernels get saved in /usr/src, for example. And I know I've installed KDE 3 and 4 side by side, with KDE4 being deployed to /opt/KDE4, and being told to look for all of it's libraries there.
It has nothing to do with GNU (and your probably talking more about the FSF anyway, not the GNU project). But anyway. It's not an open source vs free software issue. It has everything to do with the fact people don't f'ing get what the real problem is. If you buy shitty hardware that's not cooperating with the projects maintaining the OS your going to get shitty support for your hardware. Buy hardware from vendors that actually work with the OS maintainers and you'll get completely different results. The GNU/Linux developers can't support your shitty proprietary hardware because they don't have access to the code, and I damm well know the hardware vendors you buy from won't. They don't support it in Microsoft Windows so what makes you think they'll do a better job in GNU/Linux when GNU/Linux desktop distributions are more bleeding edge?
I'd hardly call HP, Apple, Sun, SGI, Lenovo, and Dell 'shitty' hardware. And from the component perspective, nVidia and AMD are far from 'shitty.'
Licensing is what keeps Linux from supporting a lot of hardware. I can install Solaris 11 on my home desktop, and everything works out of box. Everything. My nVidia GPU, sound, wifi adapter; all of it. I don't get complaints about MP3 or Flash being 'dirty' in Solaris.
I'm going to have to agree with your idea on this one - the GNU ideology is the problem. I don't care about all the politics that RMS does - I want stuff to work. I like a lot of things about Linux, but when it comes down to it, Solaris, BSD, and IRIX are all just as nice for what I'm after.
Which has lead me to advocate against desktop/laptop Linux, and I've even moved away from it on some of my personal servers (work is all still RHEL and Windows, which I can at least count on RHEL 6 to work for quite a while.
Windows 3.1 doesn't support Windows Update.
Actually, 3.1 doesn't include Internet Explorer either, so it's not vulnerable. I don't know if 16-bit IE (I have a VM with IE 5 on 3.11) is vulnerable.
You'd need to know a bit more then that - the cables being used, for example.
I wouldn't have opposed seeing a new release of IRIX. I still love my Octane.