Calculus is not true. It can not be true. GÃdel has shown that to be impossible.

Reality is what exists whether you believe in it or not. If you need faith for something to be true, it does not exist.

Agnostic means "without knowledge". It is the stance that we can not know whether god exists or not. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

An agnostic atheists holds that we can not know whether or not god exists, and lacks belief in god.

An agnostic theist holds that we can not know whether or not god exists, and holds a belief in god.

Actually, what we'd have is a pwned Linux monoculture. The diversity serves as a vast advantage, providing a heterogenous attack surface.

What we need is more forks and more diversity at a fundamental level, allowing for competition and progress. The last thing we need is nearly everyone placing a vast, monocultural attack surface at the centre of their Linux distributions.

Actually, the issue that brought systemd into existence was Poettering not enjoying high pid's.

"A good metric for measuring shell script infestation of the boot process is the PID number of the first process you can start after the system is fully booted up."
-- Lennart Poettering

Gnome for one. And many software packages are now delivered with a hard dependency on parts of systemd, meaning I'd need to compile them myself if I do not want to use systemd.

It's a cancer, eating away at the very core of Linux - choice and diversity. Yes, Poettering wants a monoculture, and any sane computer user should run as far away from that concept as possible. Any vulnerability will reach every system in a monoculture. Only the way the developers at the top deign to consider will get included in the choices available.

If that is the future you want, you can have it. I'll have no part in it. And yes, I will say "told you so" when the systemd infested infrastructure gets pwnd.

I don't. And that means a whole range of software does not run on my system.

Which is the opposite of any UNIX way ever.

Most of all, and most seriously and utterly broken, you can't replace journald. Ever. And you can't replaced udev. Or logind, if you wish to run Gnome.

In fact, apart from networkd which isn't finished, I don't know of any part of systemd which you can replace with an alternative yet have systemd work with it as if systemd was actually a piece of UNIXy software.

Mostly because systemd is not a piece of UNIXy software.

Congratulations on your complimentary Cool Aid. But did you have to drink it all in one go?

If you want to get shafted, be my guest. Just don't expect me to thank you, because when you ask for a shafting you reduce *my* freedom by making it that much harder to get rid of DRM.

"Freedom" to watch DRM'ed content?

You're asking for the freedom to be shafted.

RMS is asking you to reconsider.

The choice is yours.

He does, however, hold 14 honorary doctorates, several from schools which do not mind him using Dr.

I know how to do this, as it is part of my job. I prepare and speak, and people listen and (as apparent from their actions afterwards) understand.

Does that mean I could do so on any subject to any audience? No, not at all. I can do it in subjects I know well, when presenting them to a motivated audience. And I can do it without choked powerpoints or flashy graphs.

I find it astounding that not all high tech professionals can do this, but I have experienced so many truly horrid presentations that it appears to be a rare skill.

This is not even remotely true, as you would know had you actually bothered to read Stallman's arguments instead of only watching this intentionally simplified video.

It is, in fact, one of the main dangers Stallman sees with mixing proprietary software in distributions. Your myopia blinds you to that insightedness of his though, which is an irony in itself.

As to that it will "never affect most users", I will simply let Stallman's record speak for itself.

If you had any actual interest at all in learning this instead of trying to use it as a bat of some kind, you would already know the answer. But for the edification not of you, dear AC, but of anyone who might stumble on this:

http://www.linuxtoday.com/infr...

You have the "linux way" (it is actually the Unix philosophy) completely wrong. It is not "one program for one task". It is:

"Developers should build a program out of simple parts connected by well defined interfaces, so problems are local, and parts of the program can be replaced in future versions to support new features. This rule aims to save time on debugging code that is complex, long, and unreadable."
-- Eric S. Raymond

"Developers should design their programs to be flexible and open. This rule aims to make programs flexible, allowing them to be used in other ways than their developers intended."
-- Eric S. Raymond

"This is the Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface."
-- Doug McIlroy

What systemd does wrong is abandoning this and using API's internally - API's it does not even lock down. It's a morass.

"Everything was small... and my heart sinks for Linux when I see the size of it. [...] The manual page, which really used to be a manual page, is now a small volume, with a thousand options... We used to sit around in the Unix Room saying, 'What can we throw out? Why is there this option?' It's often because there is some deficiency in the basic design â" you didn't really hit the right design point. Instead of adding an option, think about what was forcing you to add that option."
-- Doug McIlroy

"Developers should design for the future by making their protocols extensible, allowing for easy plugins without modification to the program's architecture by other developers, noting the version of the program, and more. This rule aims to extend the lifespan and enhance the utility of the code the developer writes."
-- Eric S. Raymond

Yes, systemd IS the end of the world that many people want you to believe.

Any daemon manager solves the problems you listed. And the whole point of having an init that basically does nothing is - that init does basically nothing. That is what it is SUPPOSED to do, hand over to other processes.

And I do not want my daemon manager to do "all the stuff". I want it to obey my commands on starting and stopping daemons. Period. You may want yours to do more, and then you can use another daemon manager. That's what's called the UNIXy way. Ever hear of it?