Indeed. And on top of that they try to make it as hard as possible to do without systemd. This really seems to be a case of "if you cannot compete on merit, force users into it", which is completely unacceptable.
Or in other words, a simple, reliable and clear solution was replaced with a gigantic KISS violation. No engineer worth the name will ever do that. And if it needs doing, any good engineer will make damned sure there is an easy and clean way back. The systemd people seem to be hell-bent on making it as hard as possible to not use their monster. That alone is a good reason to stay away from it.
Actually, Debian with SYSV init still works pretty well, you may just have to do without Gnome (no great loss..). Not quite "pure", some systemd cruft will still be around but mostly be inert.
It will be interesting to see what happens when/if Debian removes that possibility. My take is that quite a few people run this way at the moment.
That and the fact that systemd is incompatible (yes, incompatible) with existing init systems. Otherwise it would be a simple configuration option whether to use systemd or something that has stood the test of time.
I disagree on SELinux, not because its interface is well-designed (it is not), but because it is needed for some things.
On the rest, I fully agree. And instead, systemd solves things that were already solved and does it badly. The amount of stupidity in that decision is staggering.
Indeed. If you want, you can cut down SYSV init to a single script, no C coding needed. You can also easily control boot order, disable and enable components, etc.
I'm still yet to have someone give me a legitimately non hysterical reason why "systemd bad" other than "its different"
This indicates a problem with understanding technology and technological explanations on your side, nothing else. "Safety in numbers" does not work for software.
Make that not a "penalty", but a safety-measure to protect society and I am on board. I think there just needs to be a limit of how much damage to society a corporation is allowed to do before it gets dismantled.
That would be nice. Of course Intel would just move to another OS then. No, the only way to fix this is if some country with enough clout (or the EU) forces Intel to do that. This also has some connection to the "right to repair".
If this is meant to say that "automation creates jobs", it is an utter fail. What happens instead is that those that automate get more business, a) showing that automation works and b) accelerating automation and c) job-loss in late-comers to automation will be even larger.
Are people really too stupid to see this? Because it is blatantly obvious.
Unfortunately, it is. Medicine is the scientific field with the biggest egos and smallest skills in the physical sciences. It really is pathetic. Fortunately, some fundamental progress has come from medical statistics, telling all these big egos that no, their pet theories do not work and no, their pet treatment have no or negative effects. But it still will be decades, perhaps centuries, before medicine can be taken seriously as a science.
Well, good luck with that. For a reference for human skill in modifying comparably simple code, look at all the bad software out there these days. Modifying genes is several orders of magnitude more complex. Also, the execution mechanism for genes has limits that no genetic modification will overcome.
And then, you can also just disregard this crap and have a decent life on earth, regardless whether there is an afterlife or not. Incidentally, if there is an afterlife, it will be very likely just you getting reincarnated into a new body, not necessarily in this universe. And yes, that means that for most, life is going to continue to suck.
While I disagree on your take of society crashing (it will be bloody and may well take > 50 years to rebuild and it will still be the same scum on top afterwards), you are spot-on about the rest. All bubbles work on the "greater fool theory", i.e. the hope that there is somebody even more stupid to buy even later. The basic economic mechanism is fools taking the money of greater fools, except there is no casino that makes sure things stay within limits and stable. In the case of Bitcoin, it is even worse, because the real-world base value of a Bitcoin is zero, and the cost of creating it is pretty high now. All that electricity and hardware is just wasted, producing no added value at all.
Add to that that at some point during a crash, people will stop mining, because the electricity used will get more expensive than what they earn from it. And then add that because of the two effects, even if there are buyers, they will be unable to buy and you get the most spectacularly fast crash imaginable. My take is that people holding larger amounts of BC may well be past the point were they can sell without causing that crash.
The "quality of the exchange" is defined also by their survivability. When Bitcoin crashes, it may well crash to zero and wipe out exchanges that are willing to pay out while the exchange-rate is on free-fall. Hence it is very debatable whether this is a sign of low quality. The other thing is that the BC network itself will likely become extremely slow to do transactions when the crash happens and will get even lower when people stop mining because they cannot recover the electricity cost of mining anymore. The first effect will be immediate, the second one may happen within hours. This is an extreme booster for the speed the crash will happen.
So getting out at 8k was the only sane thing. I would have done the same if I had any bitcoins.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. And on top of that they try to make it as hard as possible to do without systemd. This really seems to be a case of "if you cannot compete on merit, force users into it", which is completely unacceptable.
Or in other words, a simple, reliable and clear solution was replaced with a gigantic KISS violation. No engineer worth the name will ever do that. And if it needs doing, any good engineer will make damned sure there is an easy and clean way back. The systemd people seem to be hell-bent on making it as hard as possible to not use their monster. That alone is a good reason to stay away from it.
Actually, Debian with SYSV init still works pretty well, you may just have to do without Gnome (no great loss..). Not quite "pure", some systemd cruft will still be around but mostly be inert.
It will be interesting to see what happens when/if Debian removes that possibility. My take is that quite a few people run this way at the moment.
Yes, but SYSV init provides a sane starting point and an experimentation environment to get there and I can just use the same init binary.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Indeed.
And that is also a very real possibility. So longer-term, there may not even be more jobs at this company.
That and the fact that systemd is incompatible (yes, incompatible) with existing init systems. Otherwise it would be a simple configuration option whether to use systemd or something that has stood the test of time.
I disagree on SELinux, not because its interface is well-designed (it is not), but because it is needed for some things.
On the rest, I fully agree. And instead, systemd solves things that were already solved and does it badly. The amount of stupidity in that decision is staggering.
Indeed. If you want, you can cut down SYSV init to a single script, no C coding needed. You can also easily control boot order, disable and enable components, etc.
I'm still yet to have someone give me a legitimately non hysterical reason why "systemd bad" other than "its different"
This indicates a problem with understanding technology and technological explanations on your side, nothing else. "Safety in numbers" does not work for software.
Of course "them all" means exactly that. And you could allow for a transition period to bring in new people.
Make that not a "penalty", but a safety-measure to protect society and I am on board. I think there just needs to be a limit of how much damage to society a corporation is allowed to do before it gets dismantled.
That would be nice. Of course Intel would just move to another OS then. No, the only way to fix this is if some country with enough clout (or the EU) forces Intel to do that. This also has some connection to the "right to repair".
That effect is there, but at best compensates and it is not fast. For example, the next adjustment currently seems to be happening in 12 days.
If this is meant to say that "automation creates jobs", it is an utter fail. What happens instead is that those that automate get more business, a) showing that automation works and b) accelerating automation and c) job-loss in late-comers to automation will be even larger.
Are people really too stupid to see this? Because it is blatantly obvious.
Unfortunately, it is. Medicine is the scientific field with the biggest egos and smallest skills in the physical sciences. It really is pathetic. Fortunately, some fundamental progress has come from medical statistics, telling all these big egos that no, their pet theories do not work and no, their pet treatment have no or negative effects. But it still will be decades, perhaps centuries, before medicine can be taken seriously as a science.
Well, good luck with that. For a reference for human skill in modifying comparably simple code, look at all the bad software out there these days. Modifying genes is several orders of magnitude more complex. Also, the execution mechanism for genes has limits that no genetic modification will overcome.
And then, you can also just disregard this crap and have a decent life on earth, regardless whether there is an afterlife or not. Incidentally, if there is an afterlife, it will be very likely just you getting reincarnated into a new body, not necessarily in this universe. And yes, that means that for most, life is going to continue to suck.
Actually, that is smart, because tulips will never crash down to zero. Quite unlike Bitcoin.
Hehehehe, funny. And spot-on.
While I disagree on your take of society crashing (it will be bloody and may well take > 50 years to rebuild and it will still be the same scum on top afterwards), you are spot-on about the rest. All bubbles work on the "greater fool theory", i.e. the hope that there is somebody even more stupid to buy even later. The basic economic mechanism is fools taking the money of greater fools, except there is no casino that makes sure things stay within limits and stable. In the case of Bitcoin, it is even worse, because the real-world base value of a Bitcoin is zero, and the cost of creating it is pretty high now. All that electricity and hardware is just wasted, producing no added value at all.
Add to that that at some point during a crash, people will stop mining, because the electricity used will get more expensive than what they earn from it. And then add that because of the two effects, even if there are buyers, they will be unable to buy and you get the most spectacularly fast crash imaginable. My take is that people holding larger amounts of BC may well be past the point were they can sell without causing that crash.
The "quality of the exchange" is defined also by their survivability. When Bitcoin crashes, it may well crash to zero and wipe out exchanges that are willing to pay out while the exchange-rate is on free-fall. Hence it is very debatable whether this is a sign of low quality. The other thing is that the BC network itself will likely become extremely slow to do transactions when the crash happens and will get even lower when people stop mining because they cannot recover the electricity cost of mining anymore. The first effect will be immediate, the second one may happen within hours. This is an extreme booster for the speed the crash will happen.
So getting out at 8k was the only sane thing. I would have done the same if I had any bitcoins.
So jail them all? Not that I would be opposed...