As I said, they are just unnecessary bloat. The problem you are trying to solve is self-serving and endless. let's say you need to update glibc, then you add containers, now you need to update your container software so you add container-containers, then next you need to update your container-container software, so you need container-container-containers. No matter how long you keep up, you're still going to end up with the same problem and additional ones. But by now, the system has devolved into a slow mess that no one wants to touch. So you go and buy a new server and hope things are different this time.

Memory protection is a basic requirement for security in a multi-user environment.

Assuming there even is such a config setting in systemd, and that it works.

Problem is, for the most part people want to get rid of behaviour in systemd, which doesn't work for them or is otherwise useless. And in many cases it simply isn't possible.

Not really, both would work, but fewer people are good at declarative which means it's bad for system tools. I'm arguing flexible design over monolithic when it comes to something like init. You never want to reboot for minor system changes, so init needs to be as flexible as possible, to accomodate any kind of change. Systemd, the monolithic binary that links all the way up to GUI layers. You'll need to reboot for just about every software update.
It really is the worst solution anyone could ever come up with for a problem that never existed in the first place. I'm not sure I could come up with something more stupid.

You may look at things differently and therefore my response may sound harsh, but the way any normal *nix person sees these "improvements":

>1. Doesn't support being run in a container (though this is being worked on).
Apparently it now does. But I couldn't care less since containers and virtualization are an exercise in bloated pointlessness. Most operating systems can already run multiple processes simultaneously.
>2. Is slow to start up, which is important for containers.
Slow startup is a result of huge scripts and their interpreters. You really can't have it both ways.
>3. The network setup scripts could use improvement.
No idea, never used the default ones.
>4. It tends to leave orphaned processes lying around.
Haven't seen this except in faulty scripts.
>5. It doesn't care about exit status for anything.
What should it do with it? It's a config issue.
>6. It can't shut down without leaving read-only filesystemd mounted.
This might be a bug
>7. It takes quite a while to actually shut down.
Again a config issue.
>8. It lacks support for service monitoring.
I assume you mean respawning? It's usually not a good idea, but openrc supports it.
>9. Doesn't support minor tweaks to init script configuration like adding ionice without merging changes on every package update.
Don't know what you mean, all the files are editable, and you're not supposed to just blindly replace config with defaults.

The point is, openrc (just like sysVinit) is a generic tool that doesn't make unnecessary assumptions about what you're trying to do with it and due to its scripted nature has no imaginary boundaries.

I can imagine using something similar but much less bloated than systemd for simple embedded devices, but not if it's made by Mr. Poettering & co. who have a long history of bad (and anti-unix) design decisions at every corner.

The question is what was wrong with OpenRC?
It's flexible enough to do just about all the useful tasks that sysV and that systemd does.

We really don't want a kernel in user space unless you want Linux to become infected with the finder syndrome of MacOSX.

No, it's just *your* definition of what easy to use is. Most of us don't agree, which is reflected in your unhappiness with the software.

I'm not saying free software GUIs are perfect, far from it, but they are in general a lot better and more usable than proprietary ones.

Because, despite it being for the elite, it's still a lot better and easier to use than the alternatives.
Most people however, are switching to mobile handsets that run Android, and don't seem to need a full blown PC at all.

Most people don't care if Linux has a low market share, we think it's an advantage, keep the good users in and the trash out, and it's most certainly better the less Linux resembles crap like Windows, a system that will soon be remembered only by history books.

Users are only "good" if they are qualified enough to keep software working smoothly, instead of just whining.

I don't want Joe Average (assuming he's a retard like you put it) to be filling up support forums with junk because he can't RTFM.

I'm sorry, but an OS designed for your definition of "Joe Average" is an OS that would cause a mass exodus of anyone skilled enough to work on it.
There are plenty of those, like Etch-a-sketch. Have you tried it?

1&2. GUI? A sysadmin is expected to know how to edit text files and use the console.
3. Auto-running executables by accidental click is a very bad idea. Especially for "Usability". It's configurable for more advanced users.
4. Seamless updates cannot be accomplished without killling programs that are running and running into config issues. The problem is that the program needs an update.
5. App store? so linux gets more of the shitty types of apps that phones have?
6. You are free to rename free software to your liking
7. How do you know someone wants to mount an iso? Maybe they want to record it on an optical disc? Or maybe they want to use it for a virtual machine?
8. Windows shortcuts are absolutely retarded, and should not be emulated when most *DEs already offered much better ones long before windows.
9. Ever tried typing "locate" or "find"?
I think the problem is that you are using an indexed search, which for obvious reasons won't know what's not in the index.

You do not understand the Unix philosophy, since most of your suggestions are done differently on purpose.
Learn how to work with a powerful and more secure system, or go back to your smartphone, it's probably more to your liking.

Don't blame others for your incompetence as a teacher, nor your low skill with programming and Linux.

Many kids become programmers at the age of 4 if just given the chance and the right tools.
An old PC with Linux is great for learning, but a brand new Windows PC or an Ipad simply isn't, since they are entertainment devices, period.

Computer hardware manufacturing is probably one of the most expensive things, environmentally speaking, in the world.

Reusing a PC, even if it uses 2000% more energy, and requires transportation across the world, is still a net benefit to our globe.

We need more of this, and less new hardware.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Let's see, the number one most common reason to create a distro is "usability" and we've already got hundreds. Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, Ubuntu to name a few. None of them became as usable as they claim.

Maybe there's something awfully wrong with that recipe, maybe usability comes as a result of other factors, such as choice, determinism, *nix philosophy or any number of other things, which these distros clearly don't focus on.

Stroustrup has just recently said that C is obsolete.
Not that I care, C++ is his baby. But, is it in your opinion humble, to call the most popular language in existence obsolete?

"I also get upset by people needlessly sticking to C because they don't understand C++ very well. Your point?"
Case in point.
You think that people don't understand C++ if they don't prefer it for every project.

That's the core of why people dislike C++, it's not necessarily the language, it's the whole culture around it, which reeks of self-entitlement and navelgazing.

C++ may have been created as an extension of C once upon a time, but clearly people disagree on the benefits of C++ on some types of projects.
I'd say that C++ tends to kill productivity on some larger projects because people get bogged down into arguments about language details instead of getting work done. And in this case kill is an understatement, because refactoring tends to make up half of commit history.
C++ isn't helped by this hodge-podge pile of junk like stl and boost that people see as some form of standard library. Things like Qt had to come in and save C++ from early death, so things are starting to look up.

Anyhow, for low level code, C is much preferred because it doesn't hide things and that the developer culture is much more mature, often more skilled and result-oriented.

C++ proponents aren't very humble, neither is the language itself.

I also get upset with people constantly trying to shove C++ on top of C projects, just because they don't know C very well.

Java was not widely used when it was chosen, it eliminates good programming practices and it doesn't have a decent *anything*. It's really just evidence that langue du jour rules the day when it comes to decisionmaking no matter how utterly shit the language is.

Yeah let's switch from one annoyingly shitty language to another.

Seriously, these are the worst languages ever invented, with absolutely zero redeeming properties.