I don't know what post you're butthurt about, but your mod-whine sure sounds troll-y to me. He hurt you bad enough for you to cry in front of your friends, so you should at least give him that much credit.
BTW, what you describe is not a "enough rope to hang themselves" situation, even though you label it as such. Lacking in your scenario is anything equivalent to a rope, or accidentally hanging themselves. If they abide by the agreement... then that is quite simply abiding the agreement. And if they don't, it means war with the US and allies; which is exactly what we were immediately facing if the treaty was not successfully negotiated. So it is nothing at all like an "enough rope" situation, it is a straightforwards, "if they actually do it they'll avoid the war" situation. Which is, interestingly, what it was generally billed as.
you only have to look at recent history to see who the violent aggressive greedy money grabbers are, and it ain't Iran.
Well, my first thought was China invading the Marshall Islands to attempt to claim their neighbors' natural gas fields, but then I remembered Russia stealing Crimea and soon a quarter of Ukraine.
Iran falls far behind in the money-grabbing category, mostly due to a lack of ability. They certainly have opportunity; contrast the investment and technological progress that Saudi Arabia has made with their oil money, to the vast Iranian cities of mud-block apartments and tens of thousands of dead from even a moderate earthquake.
US crude oil has an export ban. Crude oil is worth $5 less on the US market than the international market. Shut off mideast oil and Russia and Venezuela get a giant windfall, and US prices only spike 25% as much as everybody else because there is an international glut caused by Saudi Arabia flooding the market. Current oversupply, designed to shoulder out US producers, would have the opposite effect if the Saudis bumbled and flip-flopped and cut production after creating a surplus.
Canada and Mexico battle for #1 supplier to the US, with domestic production at record levels. Market instability would not have the historic ability to run prices up, because an extended period of high prices has already led to growing use of other energy sources. As those other sources continue to grow, the ability of oil to be a boogeyman decreases. Oil supply disruptions would further sour people on oil in longterm planning, creating downward pressure on oil prices that would partially compensate for increased prices based on short term demand. Ultimately oil loses that battle, because multiple alternatives are online that are all cheaper longterm. The only reason that oil is competitive now is the existing infrastructure investments. But supply instability would substantially hamper future investments; infrastructure for other energy sources would receive a lot of new investment in that situation.
Absolute demand for oil continues to increase because energy demand overall continues to increase, but oil demand is increasing more slowly than anything but coal. As a share of the total energy pie, demand for oil is shrinking already, and price uncertainty is a contributing factor.
My favorite is PL/Ruby, and in the.com boom years I was using PL/Perl a lot.
PL/pgSQL is mostly compatible with the pSQL variants in the commercial databases. As a longtime postgres user I have no trouble writing basic procedures in Oracle or MS Sql Server. From a programmers perspective, postgres is the only open source database that supports traditional "database programming," and it does it using many more languages than the commercial ones. Combine functions/procedures with views, triggers, and rules, and you can do all of the old-school "big data" stuff, and with much of your business logic in a modern high level language of your choice.
There is even PL/R, for building statistical analysis right into the database.
People blather about scaling because postgres users tend to use different scaling strategies than MySQL or Sql Server users. Therefore, they worry that postgres doesn't do the thing they're used to doing. If instead they simply look into the scaling strategies in use, knowing that PosgreSQL is indeed used in large serious applications, then they'll be fine.
Twitter went through some legendary growing pains that they initially blamed on RubyOnRails that turned out in the end to have been caused by their lack of research into database scaling using postgres. So it is true that if you get to the point of having a really huge, large-scale database you will need at least one person on your technical team to spend at least a week learning about database scaling using whatever database you chose. If that sounds hard, you need to hire your first sysadmin, or admit your database is tiny and you don't need to scale it.
I get that reading is hard, but they're not actually accused of anything nefarious.
In other words, when a student logs into their educational account, and then uses Google News to create a report on current events, or researches history using Google Books, or has a geography lesson using Google Maps, or watches a science video on YouTube, Google tracks that activity...
That is from the EFF response to the Google defense.
It turns out the accusation is not the accusation it appears to be at first. The accusation is simply that a Chromebook can be used to connect to the internet. That is the whole accusation.
As each risk is reduced, humans become more concerned about other risks that are either new, or were less important in the shadow of the old risk. Insurance earns a lot more money when risks are being cycled and reduced than if it was steady-state. Price reductions are guaranteed to lag behind risk reductions, because insurance purchasers don't have fresh data. And not only is the data a couple years old, they certainly can't see the risk reductions that will happen during the life of the policy. And policies will have price structures to discourage frequent policy-hopping, and also to reward paying in longer increments, which also serve to extend the time between the risk reduction and the premium reduction.
Liability insurance cost reductions for manufacturers would lag many years behind a major fire safety improvement. That is why insurance has always been a big funder of fire prevention using noxious chemicals. Simplistic analysis shows that insurers love risk, which is true, but they love reducing existing risk even more, because (information theory).
I totally disagree. If they didn't already read all these books, they aren't going to. These types of recommendations only have utility when the question is about what books to read. If they're actually in the real life situation where that knowledge would be useful, and asking randomly what to do, they're not going to benefit from the books. And they're probably not going to try to either, but if they did try just this one time it would fail and they wouldn't be able to use the knowledge. They would need to be a reader and to read dozens of books on business, and then an individual book that covers their situation could have utility.
If they are at this stage in real life, and not just a fake question by dice, and they are willing to listen to ideas from slashdot users, they're just screwed. They should cut short their pain and just bring in some lawyers, give them ~25% of the company, and hope they can plunder some loot. Because lawyers are going to be the ones who end up with all the money from this, because the patent holder is a cluestick.
Is it really true that a small town factory is the only employer possible for their employees?
Uh, yeah, sometimes.
Did jobs exist before that business opened?
Sometimes no, the town got built around the factory. Sometimes yes, but those businesses are gone.
Are there roads connecting this remote village to other villages with different employers?
So what, walk to the next town over and be a homeless person?
Exactly, you skip right over even trying to find a job, because you don't believe in the possibilities. So that is your "plan," to be homeless without trying. Ignorance wins every time it wants to.
And by-the-way, very very few factories were there before the town. Most businesses are located near people, not the other way around. Even when there is a remote resource being extracted, the vast majority of the factories using that resource will be located near a regional population center. Follow the people to the city. There are jobs growing there.
Just because you didn't read the whole study, doesn't mean they make this error automatically.;) Remember, you only read bits and pieces of a media article linked by dice, you didn't actually read the study to find out if they confused cause and correlation.
Also, some studies are designed with particular causes included in the study, in order to check for correlations. Perhaps they started with situations where bad behavior exists, and then measured what correlates. In that case the knee-jerk accusation would almost always be wrong, because it is activated by the syntax of the speaker having implied a cause. But actually if you're searching for effects of a known potential cause instead of causes of a known effect then it inverts everything. So the knee-jerk reaction based on syntax can never know if it is correct or not. It might correlate with the logical error, but you can't accurately identify the cause of the syntax anomaly as being a logical error.
(If your syntax analysis was better, you might have noticed that even the media story describes the study as having measured the spread of introduced behaviors. Measuring the rate of an introduced factor spreading is the most basic correlation study you can do. There is no reason to presume there is implied cause there.)
But I don't see why they're only talking about negative behaviour since positive behaviour should also spread by the same mechanism. Perhaps upper management is more likely to spread negative things, or the cost of Enrons is too great to offset the benefit of really functional organizations, but I wish they had at least acknowledged the possibility.
Sure, but as the guys on the factory floor can tell you, "shit always rolls downhill." It is the first thing to look at. Don't presume that studies are intended to be definitive; they never are, they're always incremental. I agree they might not have asked the most important question first, but they did ask about one of the most commonly perceived aspects of the topic, which is a normal place to start.
If you believe yourself not to have options, you don't.
Is it really true that a small town factory is the only employer possible for their employees? Did jobs exist before that business opened? Are there roads connecting this remote village to other villages with different employers? It is a totally failed argument that has been attempted many times.
Remoteness rarely restricts employment opportunity, because humans are rarely prohibited from travel. Rather, it is the belief in a lack of opportunity, also known as "ignorance," that binds them. It is entirely internal.
Interestingly, people in cities with labor shortages often still maintain the same belief in lack of job mobility, especially if they haven't changed jobs in a long time, and also especially if they are exposed to media that frequently tells them times are tough or that the future is scary and uncertain.
This is a very important factor to study, especially because the higher bosses blame "bad apples" at the bottom nearly 100% of the time, whereas in reality there are probably bad apples at each level depending on the particular company.
The form of his statement makes it clear that he's saying it doesn't make sense for the sides that are fighting. You point vaguely at stuff that contains various truths, but they're not relevant to his point, don't change it any way, and you didn't even attempt to actually add anything.
Are you suggesting that external profiteering means that educated soldiers would NOT want to end a conflict once they understand that it harms their own side, and has no chance to make life better for their families? Or are you just repeating an off-topic cliche in any random position?
You're trying to defend a pejorative by using an absurd caricature as a straw man stand-in for people who actually support justice. It is pretty weak sauce. I mean, think how awesome and powerful Justice must be that you have to pretend it doesn't exist in order to argue against people who support it?
You even throw in a True Scotsman for good measure; they are incapable of comprehension, even of a basic ethical concepts like "bullying," because of the nature of Justice. They're just not a real SJW in your explanation unless they just don't care, and can't comprehend extant realities.
Do you even comprehend that you're fighting for perceived social justice in your argument? What is an "SJW?" People who do as you do here, and make a case for social justice. You can't be against bullies, and admit you are, and not be a social justice warrior.
It is really not impressive at all. Turn on the news if you want to know how silly and pathetic and freakin' tiny your complaints are compared to the problems in the world that cause people to seek Justice.
LOL no amount of trolling the links will get me interesting in reading your slashdot journal, and no, writing an essay does not replace discussion. Nobody is going to go read that shit. You're generally expected to type in new comments as part of a discussion, and to formulate them for the current context.
And I've personally compiled and installed non-init parts of systemd. You're not going to convince me that I dreamt it; it is actually a well-known myth about systemd that it is modular. Repeating the myth does not make separate compilation or operation of the parts difficult.
LOL you know that you can still read a "binary log format" (were the old ones analog? do the new ones lack text?) using text tools, right? And that you can simply leave the old logs turned on, and still read them?
Did you know that all the old SysV scripts are still supported? Did you know that most daemons don't even have new systemd style startup binaries? And if one does, you can simply delete it, and go back to the SysV script? It isn't like giving up the crufty SysV init process means that you can't still use the init scripts.
"LAMP stacks" aren't affected at all here. Apache or whatever your webserver is should already be running. I run LAMP stacks, and so I know systemd has nothing to fucking do with that shit, at all. You're trying to dick-wave, but you're waving a plastic dildo. You're full of shit that systemd is harming your work in the ways you describe, and if you did that work you'd understand why. Binary logs, are fucking joking? You can't read a log anymore? Guess what, you misunderstood the complaints about binary logs when fabricating your story. In real life, logs are still readable.
> Because the whiners don't have a use-case. systemd is modular, but it tends to come with all the modules packaged together
I'm afraid it's not. The dependencies among components are very strong, and it's quite difficult to segregate out one component for de-activation or non-installation unless you compile with that feature de-activated, in which case you must recompile to re-enable the future. It's very difficult to install only the components you want due to the interdependencies.
Horse shit. I'm not talking about the end user recompiling it. I'm talking about the know-it-all whiners recompiling with those features set the way they need to satisfy their delicate personalities, and then offering those choices as packages for like-minded users. Yes, it is too hard for the actual whiners we have, but it would be easy, beyond simply "trivial," for any Jr Sysadmin or even a Jr Software Developer if they've ever used make.
And no, there are not a bunch of cross-dependencies. That is just ignorance. If you turned off the features that use the other part, it will not still be a dependency. That is how dependencies work in a modern build system. That the whiners we have would not be able to successfully identify and turn off the features they claim are oppressing them is a totally different problem. They don't know how to hoe their own row, so they can just sit and cry about it, maybe walk around and kick some rocks.
Gilligan's Palace. Maybe on the roof you can put a human cannon, and for an extra six digits it can launch you all the way around the planet and into a big net. Then you roll off the net right into a pool shaped like a giant teacup. And there will be a bunch of sexy green aliens serving poolside drinks.
Right, OK. I'll explain it to you. Everything you talk about is either a disk drive, RAM, or an external device that plugs into the computer.
Everybody else with commodity systems can also upgrade the parts that are internal, and not just the disk drives and RAM.
You just keep talking about disk drives, disk drives, disk drives. Right, that is all you understand as being upgradeable. If you've been a fanboi as long as you claim, you remember that when you started you couldn't even share disk drives.;) I know it is great that you can do that now. Now, go get a motherboard from a different vendor, and install that. Oh, you can't, there are no other vendors. LOL derrrrrr
For the average user, don't worry about the difference.;)
From the perspective of a *nix power user, people choose the desktop environment separately from the window manager. So they provide very different features. The Window Manager draws the window borders, placement, stacking, etc. The desktop environment does a bunch of other stuff, like managing the video settings, the inputs, cross-application features like cut/paste, print dialogs, and also often provides a GUI "control panel" for managing the whole OS.
Also, if you read the article, you absolutely do not need the systemd init system to use the new features. That is just another myth that the non-readers are circulating and repeating. The article goes into the specific features and what and why questions. It isn't the window manager functions that are involved, but things like the GUI login screen that comes with the desktop environment.
For example, in the old days we didn't have desktop environments. We only had window managers. So instead of being able to start Gnome or KDE from the system and receive a login screen, you'd login to your user account from the text terminal, run a script like "startx" that would have your preferred window manager and settings in it, and that would start the X Window System (which would manage the mouse/keyboard directly) and then it would start your window manager, and a few default applications that probably includes a task bar and some sort of app launcher. Copy/paste usually only worked for apps that used the basic terminal paste capabilities; apps that had more advanced cut/paste capabilities were generally incompatible with each other. And not only was their no common sort of print dialog, there wasn't even a layer in the system to hang it on. Print and copy/paste are the killer features that pushed the creation of a "desktop environment," because there needed to be a layer to attach that stuff to. It needed to be closer to the app than the X Window System, because nobody wanted to add bloat in that layer, and it needed to be closer to X than to the window manager, because people used a lot of different window managers. App developers who wanted portable copy/paste were adding support for individual window managers already, which worked poorly, so there clearly had to be another layer between that and X. Also, when you wanted a GUI login, you had to run that as a separate app to replace the startx script, which made those use cases really klunky and error-prone.
So the desktop environment is designed to run a GUI login screen as a system user, manage the related hardware configuration, allow the user to select their window manager (most gnome environments come with a bunch of different window managers) and then after it is all running, it manages the mouse and keyboard, and provides a unified cut/paste clipboard and printer dialog. It also manages lock screens, etc. Window managers have no idea if you want to lock the screen or not; they're just painting windows after all. In the old days we had background processes spying on your keyboard and mouse directly in order to decide when to launch a screensaver, and lock screens were a screensaver feature. This ties into one of the things finally getting fixed at the desktop level; using non-init parts of systemd to allow the desktop environment to monitor the user inputs, but without giving any old user process access to spy the keyboard and mouse. If that singes somebody's neckbeard it isn't going to stop me from enjoying the improved security.
So now there's no Gnome or KDE on anything but Linux.
There are many of us made happy by that. One less thing to remove from our systems.
To the original question, though: the answer is yes, you can run anything you want on a system with no systemd. That's the point of open source; you can do whatever you want. If systemd really bugs you that much, just build yourself a system without it.
There is always an army of people who are happy about things that are untrue.
If it affected you as much as you imply by referencing removing things from system, which implies being a technical decision-maker, don't you think you would look foolish to have inaccurate beliefs about those things that are affecting you?
The answer isn't just "you can run anything you want." That is a good thing to keep in mind, since nobody is running systemd except by choice. But more to the point here, you can still run gnome or kde anywhere that they ran before. This does not affect that choice, though it might effect installation of specific packages to get specific features on specific non-systemd systems. And of course on linux you can install just the parts of systemd that are used by Gnome or KDE, there is no need to run the init system. People who claim it is monolithic should really learn the *nix commands cd and make.
And honestly if you're using some non-linux OS and have to remove Gnome or KDE, I'd just like to point out that you probably could have just chose to not install it in the first place. Installing a bunch of crap you don't need so that you can hold your nose in the air while uninstalling it... I don't think that is going to impress the BSD crowd very much. Not that anything does.;)
So why can't there be other systems that do the various parts that aren't init but systemd is doing?
Because that's for losers. Real computer users get with the program and use systemd for everything. Or they'll get made fun of when they complain about the stuff they want to run depending on systemd when there is no rational reason for it to do so.
Because that's for losers. Real computer users don't cause what they want to exist, they just demand that somebody write the software they want. Pathetic newbs use what others write, or write what they want to use. Real computer users understand the value of convenience, and maximize the efficiency of their uses by waiting for others to do all the work first. And if they don't get what they want, they know it is more efficient to complain loudly and persistently for years until somebody writes what they want, than to write it now, or learn how.
Slashdot Mirror
Plate readers have existed since plates were mandated - they just used to be very expensive to feed
A lot longer than that! They used to have to read the door plates and know all the house emblems.
I don't know what post you're butthurt about, but your mod-whine sure sounds troll-y to me. He hurt you bad enough for you to cry in front of your friends, so you should at least give him that much credit.
BTW, what you describe is not a "enough rope to hang themselves" situation, even though you label it as such. Lacking in your scenario is anything equivalent to a rope, or accidentally hanging themselves. If they abide by the agreement... then that is quite simply abiding the agreement. And if they don't, it means war with the US and allies; which is exactly what we were immediately facing if the treaty was not successfully negotiated. So it is nothing at all like an "enough rope" situation, it is a straightforwards, "if they actually do it they'll avoid the war" situation. Which is, interestingly, what it was generally billed as.
you only have to look at recent history to see who the violent aggressive greedy money grabbers are, and it ain't Iran.
Well, my first thought was China invading the Marshall Islands to attempt to claim their neighbors' natural gas fields, but then I remembered Russia stealing Crimea and soon a quarter of Ukraine.
Iran falls far behind in the money-grabbing category, mostly due to a lack of ability. They certainly have opportunity; contrast the investment and technological progress that Saudi Arabia has made with their oil money, to the vast Iranian cities of mud-block apartments and tens of thousands of dead from even a moderate earthquake.
US crude oil has an export ban. Crude oil is worth $5 less on the US market than the international market. Shut off mideast oil and Russia and Venezuela get a giant windfall, and US prices only spike 25% as much as everybody else because there is an international glut caused by Saudi Arabia flooding the market. Current oversupply, designed to shoulder out US producers, would have the opposite effect if the Saudis bumbled and flip-flopped and cut production after creating a surplus.
Canada and Mexico battle for #1 supplier to the US, with domestic production at record levels. Market instability would not have the historic ability to run prices up, because an extended period of high prices has already led to growing use of other energy sources. As those other sources continue to grow, the ability of oil to be a boogeyman decreases. Oil supply disruptions would further sour people on oil in longterm planning, creating downward pressure on oil prices that would partially compensate for increased prices based on short term demand. Ultimately oil loses that battle, because multiple alternatives are online that are all cheaper longterm. The only reason that oil is competitive now is the existing infrastructure investments. But supply instability would substantially hamper future investments; infrastructure for other energy sources would receive a lot of new investment in that situation.
Absolute demand for oil continues to increase because energy demand overall continues to increase, but oil demand is increasing more slowly than anything but coal. As a share of the total energy pie, demand for oil is shrinking already, and price uncertainty is a contributing factor.
Just do less, and it is easier. What a perfect answer!
I have no problem with this. However, expect that many of us will continue to include features, including calculating values on the server side.
PL/pgSQL
Oh great! Another mouthful of random letters....
If you don't know, you don't need to know. Easy.
My favorite is PL/Ruby, and in the .com boom years I was using PL/Perl a lot.
PL/pgSQL is mostly compatible with the pSQL variants in the commercial databases. As a longtime postgres user I have no trouble writing basic procedures in Oracle or MS Sql Server. From a programmers perspective, postgres is the only open source database that supports traditional "database programming," and it does it using many more languages than the commercial ones. Combine functions/procedures with views, triggers, and rules, and you can do all of the old-school "big data" stuff, and with much of your business logic in a modern high level language of your choice.
There is even PL/R, for building statistical analysis right into the database.
People blather about scaling because postgres users tend to use different scaling strategies than MySQL or Sql Server users. Therefore, they worry that postgres doesn't do the thing they're used to doing. If instead they simply look into the scaling strategies in use, knowing that PosgreSQL is indeed used in large serious applications, then they'll be fine.
Twitter went through some legendary growing pains that they initially blamed on RubyOnRails that turned out in the end to have been caused by their lack of research into database scaling using postgres. So it is true that if you get to the point of having a really huge, large-scale database you will need at least one person on your technical team to spend at least a week learning about database scaling using whatever database you chose. If that sounds hard, you need to hire your first sysadmin, or admit your database is tiny and you don't need to scale it.
I get that reading is hard, but they're not actually accused of anything nefarious.
In other words, when a student logs into their educational account, and then uses Google News to create a report on current events, or researches history using Google Books, or has a geography lesson using Google Maps, or watches a science video on YouTube, Google tracks that activity...
That is from the EFF response to the Google defense.
It turns out the accusation is not the accusation it appears to be at first. The accusation is simply that a Chromebook can be used to connect to the internet. That is the whole accusation.
As each risk is reduced, humans become more concerned about other risks that are either new, or were less important in the shadow of the old risk. Insurance earns a lot more money when risks are being cycled and reduced than if it was steady-state. Price reductions are guaranteed to lag behind risk reductions, because insurance purchasers don't have fresh data. And not only is the data a couple years old, they certainly can't see the risk reductions that will happen during the life of the policy. And policies will have price structures to discourage frequent policy-hopping, and also to reward paying in longer increments, which also serve to extend the time between the risk reduction and the premium reduction.
Liability insurance cost reductions for manufacturers would lag many years behind a major fire safety improvement. That is why insurance has always been a big funder of fire prevention using noxious chemicals. Simplistic analysis shows that insurers love risk, which is true, but they love reducing existing risk even more, because (information theory).
I totally disagree. If they didn't already read all these books, they aren't going to. These types of recommendations only have utility when the question is about what books to read. If they're actually in the real life situation where that knowledge would be useful, and asking randomly what to do, they're not going to benefit from the books. And they're probably not going to try to either, but if they did try just this one time it would fail and they wouldn't be able to use the knowledge. They would need to be a reader and to read dozens of books on business, and then an individual book that covers their situation could have utility.
If they are at this stage in real life, and not just a fake question by dice, and they are willing to listen to ideas from slashdot users, they're just screwed. They should cut short their pain and just bring in some lawyers, give them ~25% of the company, and hope they can plunder some loot. Because lawyers are going to be the ones who end up with all the money from this, because the patent holder is a cluestick.
Uh, yeah, sometimes.
Sometimes no, the town got built around the factory. Sometimes yes, but those businesses are gone.
So what, walk to the next town over and be a homeless person?
Exactly, you skip right over even trying to find a job, because you don't believe in the possibilities. So that is your "plan," to be homeless without trying. Ignorance wins every time it wants to.
And by-the-way, very very few factories were there before the town. Most businesses are located near people, not the other way around. Even when there is a remote resource being extracted, the vast majority of the factories using that resource will be located near a regional population center. Follow the people to the city. There are jobs growing there.
Just because you didn't read the whole study, doesn't mean they make this error automatically. ;) Remember, you only read bits and pieces of a media article linked by dice, you didn't actually read the study to find out if they confused cause and correlation.
Also, some studies are designed with particular causes included in the study, in order to check for correlations. Perhaps they started with situations where bad behavior exists, and then measured what correlates. In that case the knee-jerk accusation would almost always be wrong, because it is activated by the syntax of the speaker having implied a cause. But actually if you're searching for effects of a known potential cause instead of causes of a known effect then it inverts everything. So the knee-jerk reaction based on syntax can never know if it is correct or not. It might correlate with the logical error, but you can't accurately identify the cause of the syntax anomaly as being a logical error.
(If your syntax analysis was better, you might have noticed that even the media story describes the study as having measured the spread of introduced behaviors. Measuring the rate of an introduced factor spreading is the most basic correlation study you can do. There is no reason to presume there is implied cause there.)
But I don't see why they're only talking about negative behaviour since positive behaviour should also spread by the same mechanism. Perhaps upper management is more likely to spread negative things, or the cost of Enrons is too great to offset the benefit of really functional organizations, but I wish they had at least acknowledged the possibility.
Sure, but as the guys on the factory floor can tell you, "shit always rolls downhill." It is the first thing to look at. Don't presume that studies are intended to be definitive; they never are, they're always incremental. I agree they might not have asked the most important question first, but they did ask about one of the most commonly perceived aspects of the topic, which is a normal place to start.
If you believe yourself not to have options, you don't.
Is it really true that a small town factory is the only employer possible for their employees? Did jobs exist before that business opened? Are there roads connecting this remote village to other villages with different employers? It is a totally failed argument that has been attempted many times.
Remoteness rarely restricts employment opportunity, because humans are rarely prohibited from travel. Rather, it is the belief in a lack of opportunity, also known as "ignorance," that binds them. It is entirely internal.
Interestingly, people in cities with labor shortages often still maintain the same belief in lack of job mobility, especially if they haven't changed jobs in a long time, and also especially if they are exposed to media that frequently tells them times are tough or that the future is scary and uncertain.
This is a very important factor to study, especially because the higher bosses blame "bad apples" at the bottom nearly 100% of the time, whereas in reality there are probably bad apples at each level depending on the particular company.
The form of his statement makes it clear that he's saying it doesn't make sense for the sides that are fighting. You point vaguely at stuff that contains various truths, but they're not relevant to his point, don't change it any way, and you didn't even attempt to actually add anything.
Are you suggesting that external profiteering means that educated soldiers would NOT want to end a conflict once they understand that it harms their own side, and has no chance to make life better for their families? Or are you just repeating an off-topic cliche in any random position?
You're trying to defend a pejorative by using an absurd caricature as a straw man stand-in for people who actually support justice. It is pretty weak sauce. I mean, think how awesome and powerful Justice must be that you have to pretend it doesn't exist in order to argue against people who support it?
You even throw in a True Scotsman for good measure; they are incapable of comprehension, even of a basic ethical concepts like "bullying," because of the nature of Justice. They're just not a real SJW in your explanation unless they just don't care, and can't comprehend extant realities.
Do you even comprehend that you're fighting for perceived social justice in your argument? What is an "SJW?" People who do as you do here, and make a case for social justice. You can't be against bullies, and admit you are, and not be a social justice warrior.
It is really not impressive at all. Turn on the news if you want to know how silly and pathetic and freakin' tiny your complaints are compared to the problems in the world that cause people to seek Justice.
LOL no amount of trolling the links will get me interesting in reading your slashdot journal, and no, writing an essay does not replace discussion. Nobody is going to go read that shit. You're generally expected to type in new comments as part of a discussion, and to formulate them for the current context.
And I've personally compiled and installed non-init parts of systemd. You're not going to convince me that I dreamt it; it is actually a well-known myth about systemd that it is modular. Repeating the myth does not make separate compilation or operation of the parts difficult.
LOL you know that you can still read a "binary log format" (were the old ones analog? do the new ones lack text?) using text tools, right? And that you can simply leave the old logs turned on, and still read them?
Did you know that all the old SysV scripts are still supported? Did you know that most daemons don't even have new systemd style startup binaries? And if one does, you can simply delete it, and go back to the SysV script? It isn't like giving up the crufty SysV init process means that you can't still use the init scripts.
"LAMP stacks" aren't affected at all here. Apache or whatever your webserver is should already be running. I run LAMP stacks, and so I know systemd has nothing to fucking do with that shit, at all. You're trying to dick-wave, but you're waving a plastic dildo. You're full of shit that systemd is harming your work in the ways you describe, and if you did that work you'd understand why. Binary logs, are fucking joking? You can't read a log anymore? Guess what, you misunderstood the complaints about binary logs when fabricating your story. In real life, logs are still readable.
> Because the whiners don't have a use-case. systemd is modular, but it tends to come with all the modules packaged together
I'm afraid it's not. The dependencies among components are very strong, and it's quite difficult to segregate out one component for de-activation or non-installation unless you compile with that feature de-activated, in which case you must recompile to re-enable the future. It's very difficult to install only the components you want due to the interdependencies.
Horse shit. I'm not talking about the end user recompiling it. I'm talking about the know-it-all whiners recompiling with those features set the way they need to satisfy their delicate personalities, and then offering those choices as packages for like-minded users. Yes, it is too hard for the actual whiners we have, but it would be easy, beyond simply "trivial," for any Jr Sysadmin or even a Jr Software Developer if they've ever used make.
And no, there are not a bunch of cross-dependencies. That is just ignorance. If you turned off the features that use the other part, it will not still be a dependency. That is how dependencies work in a modern build system. That the whiners we have would not be able to successfully identify and turn off the features they claim are oppressing them is a totally different problem. They don't know how to hoe their own row, so they can just sit and cry about it, maybe walk around and kick some rocks.
Gilligan's Palace. Maybe on the roof you can put a human cannon, and for an extra six digits it can launch you all the way around the planet and into a big net. Then you roll off the net right into a pool shaped like a giant teacup. And there will be a bunch of sexy green aliens serving poolside drinks.
Right, OK. I'll explain it to you. Everything you talk about is either a disk drive, RAM, or an external device that plugs into the computer.
Everybody else with commodity systems can also upgrade the parts that are internal, and not just the disk drives and RAM.
You just keep talking about disk drives, disk drives, disk drives. Right, that is all you understand as being upgradeable. If you've been a fanboi as long as you claim, you remember that when you started you couldn't even share disk drives. ;) I know it is great that you can do that now. Now, go get a motherboard from a different vendor, and install that. Oh, you can't, there are no other vendors. LOL derrrrrr
For the average user, don't worry about the difference. ;)
From the perspective of a *nix power user, people choose the desktop environment separately from the window manager. So they provide very different features. The Window Manager draws the window borders, placement, stacking, etc. The desktop environment does a bunch of other stuff, like managing the video settings, the inputs, cross-application features like cut/paste, print dialogs, and also often provides a GUI "control panel" for managing the whole OS.
Also, if you read the article, you absolutely do not need the systemd init system to use the new features. That is just another myth that the non-readers are circulating and repeating. The article goes into the specific features and what and why questions. It isn't the window manager functions that are involved, but things like the GUI login screen that comes with the desktop environment.
For example, in the old days we didn't have desktop environments. We only had window managers. So instead of being able to start Gnome or KDE from the system and receive a login screen, you'd login to your user account from the text terminal, run a script like "startx" that would have your preferred window manager and settings in it, and that would start the X Window System (which would manage the mouse/keyboard directly) and then it would start your window manager, and a few default applications that probably includes a task bar and some sort of app launcher. Copy/paste usually only worked for apps that used the basic terminal paste capabilities; apps that had more advanced cut/paste capabilities were generally incompatible with each other. And not only was their no common sort of print dialog, there wasn't even a layer in the system to hang it on. Print and copy/paste are the killer features that pushed the creation of a "desktop environment," because there needed to be a layer to attach that stuff to. It needed to be closer to the app than the X Window System, because nobody wanted to add bloat in that layer, and it needed to be closer to X than to the window manager, because people used a lot of different window managers. App developers who wanted portable copy/paste were adding support for individual window managers already, which worked poorly, so there clearly had to be another layer between that and X. Also, when you wanted a GUI login, you had to run that as a separate app to replace the startx script, which made those use cases really klunky and error-prone.
So the desktop environment is designed to run a GUI login screen as a system user, manage the related hardware configuration, allow the user to select their window manager (most gnome environments come with a bunch of different window managers) and then after it is all running, it manages the mouse and keyboard, and provides a unified cut/paste clipboard and printer dialog. It also manages lock screens, etc. Window managers have no idea if you want to lock the screen or not; they're just painting windows after all. In the old days we had background processes spying on your keyboard and mouse directly in order to decide when to launch a screensaver, and lock screens were a screensaver feature. This ties into one of the things finally getting fixed at the desktop level; using non-init parts of systemd to allow the desktop environment to monitor the user inputs, but without giving any old user process access to spy the keyboard and mouse. If that singes somebody's neckbeard it isn't going to stop me from enjoying the improved security.
So now there's no Gnome or KDE on anything but Linux.
There are many of us made happy by that. One less thing to remove from our systems.
To the original question, though: the answer is yes, you can run anything you want on a system with no systemd. That's the point of open source; you can do whatever you want. If systemd really bugs you that much, just build yourself a system without it.
There is always an army of people who are happy about things that are untrue.
If it affected you as much as you imply by referencing removing things from system, which implies being a technical decision-maker, don't you think you would look foolish to have inaccurate beliefs about those things that are affecting you?
The answer isn't just "you can run anything you want." That is a good thing to keep in mind, since nobody is running systemd except by choice. But more to the point here, you can still run gnome or kde anywhere that they ran before. This does not affect that choice, though it might effect installation of specific packages to get specific features on specific non-systemd systems. And of course on linux you can install just the parts of systemd that are used by Gnome or KDE, there is no need to run the init system. People who claim it is monolithic should really learn the *nix commands cd and make.
And honestly if you're using some non-linux OS and have to remove Gnome or KDE, I'd just like to point out that you probably could have just chose to not install it in the first place. Installing a bunch of crap you don't need so that you can hold your nose in the air while uninstalling it... I don't think that is going to impress the BSD crowd very much. Not that anything does. ;)
So why can't there be other systems that do the various parts that aren't init but systemd is doing?
Because that's for losers. Real computer users get with the program and use systemd for everything. Or they'll get made fun of when they complain about the stuff they want to run depending on systemd when there is no rational reason for it to do so.
Because that's for losers. Real computer users don't cause what they want to exist, they just demand that somebody write the software they want. Pathetic newbs use what others write, or write what they want to use. Real computer users understand the value of convenience, and maximize the efficiency of their uses by waiting for others to do all the work first. And if they don't get what they want, they know it is more efficient to complain loudly and persistently for years until somebody writes what they want, than to write it now, or learn how.