> You mean.... gasp!
In terms of the larger systems that it is integrated with, that is EXACTLY what it is. It is a highly specialized application that does one thing well and leaves the scope creep for other programs that consume it's services.
It may even be broken down into a lot of highly specialized background processes like Oracle.
> The main one is parallel startup of daemons.
This leads to a Windows style boot process where things might not even be ready when they are needed. I see this with one of my more complex Ubuntu boxes. It HALTS the boot process. Now I have to find a way to manually repair that so that box can boot on it's own without human intervention.
So you have this mindless following of the Windows mentality where it doesn't matter so much if the machine is useful. It just needs to appear to be useful for marketing purposes.
"Booting fast" is a pretty low priority item to trash a core system process over.
It doesn't even need to be "crashing". It could simply be "user error" incurred because the system is more complex, more difficult to deal with, and new and interesting "user driven" failure cases have been added.
Upstart is a real peach in that regard. I've blown my toe of with it already. If SystemD is anything like that, no thanks..
I may shock the Lemmings and Fanboys, but we don't hold up people like Linus as if they are infallible. If we think our "leaders" are full of shit, we will happily say so.
We don't treat our community leaders like Kings or Popes.
I think Australia just isn't big enough. It doesn't represent enough money or enough people. It's small enough that the gatekeepers might not give a damn. Screwing over the whole continent is not that big of a loss for them.
> They are demanding it: see "Should Open-Source" in the title.
You are a delusional idiot.
"Should" does not imply or indicate a demand.
It's time to step out of the Cupertino reality distortion field.
You fanboys are like a bunch of fundies.
> Apple, and others, stopped using the "truly free" gcc because GPL v3 became quite restrictive.
There's nothing in there that should scare off anyone. If someone is bothered by the GPL3 in a project like C++ compiler, then you should be very suspicious of their motives. They clearly aren't interested in playing nice or being a good citizen.
They clearly want to be free to f*ck you over later.
Why "give" anything? The first one that delivers should win. Competitors should not be prematurely removed from the race just because of rampant cronyism.
It's pretty easy to argue that a bloated corporate behemoth could be lagging behind an upstart startup.
That's not uncommon in tech.
The guy said he had some old VHS tapes lying around.
He didn't say anything about having any delusions about being the owner or even an employee of the likes of D2 or ILM.
In other words: throw lots of money at the problem regardless of whether or not the solution is even vaguely appropriate.
> Too many kids show up with nothing, or nothing of any nutritional value, because the parent can't or won't prepare a lunch..
In a school district like that, there's so many kids on the dole that they are all getting a free lunch anyways. It's easier on the school district that way.
> My point is, if atheism is a valid belief/religion, then stealing should be an ethically (but not legally) okay profession. That is, atheism supports the path of the sociopath.
This is the problem with Xianity in particular. It believes that all people are fundementally evil (original sin) and that people need religion and the promise of severe retribution as a crutch. It doesn't allow for the possibility that people could develop or mature morally.
It's kind of "anti-StarTrek" if you think about it.
Plus you have the modern fundie movement that thinks that you have to be a blithering mindless moron vulnerable to the next cult leader to come down the line.
This is VERY "anti-StarTrek" if you think about it.
Europe has had 2000 years of that kind of indoctrination. It's a wonder the entire continent isn't a backwards idiot ridden Sodom and Gamorrah.
> A religious person says: I believe in God.
>
> An atheist says: You shouldn't because you can't prove it
No. You're projecting. You're trying to conflate what YOU would do with what some "other" would do. You are engaging in a common fundie tactic of pretending your own fault is that of your "enemy".
You assume that atheists "give a fuck". They generally don't. They really only have an interest when some theocrat jackass wants to impose their beliefs on everyone around them.
> What about non-religious people forcing their views onto you or other people?
This only manifests in preventing theocrats from running around like members of ISIS forcing their views on everyone else. We have certain laws and founding ideals that are contrary to the theocrat mentality.
> really? to me it seems more that the athiests are trying to prove something to the others on how superior they are.
In truth, it is Tea Baggers that do most of that. They are the most numerous and most visible of any of this kind of thing. They insist on pushing their beliefs on everyone (including other Xians).
An atheist or two pointing out that you are breaking your own rules is not nearly as obnoxious as you make it out to be.
Not just that. They would rather watch football or Game of Thrones than the current iteration of The Day the Universe Changed. It doesn't matter how much you impress random billionaires or the Ivory Tower education crowd.
You can provide the materials, but there's no gaurantee that anyone will want to use them.
On the other hand, The Great Courses see plenty of Torrent traffic. There's certainly demand for the stuff. Just less than for Expendables 3.
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah
