cat is just a binary tool.

You speak of what you do not know. Have you never seen a SysV system stop dead during boot because the syslog daemon came up but hung? I have. Have you never had to contend with a system only getting its network shares mounted half the time because of a race condition in startup between rpcbind and the network? I have.

The problem is that you SysV defenders set an impossible high bar for quality for systemd, whilst ignoring the very real problems that can and do crop up on SysV init.

I have no use cases right now that require systemd. I can continue using SysV for quite some time. But I have run into shortcomings of SysV, and the shortcomings systemd has are definitely not any worse. The advantages of sane dependencies, on-demand service startup and service monitoring far outweigh those.

Let's not overstate this. The account given by Bingo is a good one, and on the facts it shows two law enforcement officers just doing their job: gathering background information, and they're doing it in a way to minimise the hassle for the ordinary member of public they're interviewing. Bingo mentions no powerplays beyond them identifying themselves as LEOs.

And doing the research how Silk Road grew out of the early BitCoin scene (or if it even did) is a legitimate avenue of inquiry.

I am not a fan of the bullies that populate far too many police forces, so this is a welcome change of pace.

And if you do leave the house, cover yourself up to protect you from all the raping animals out there.

Seriously, why don't you fuck off to Tehran or Riyad? You'd be perfectly at home there.

Now, if you were honest, you'd apply the same standard to SysV init. If that doesn't start syslog, guess what, you'll have no logs either.

The Unix way of things? That has always been the pragmatic way: adopt what works for most cases, worry about the details later. It gave rise to an entire movement of people who hated it for that, see the Unix Haters Handbook for examples. Unix is not a static monolithic system, complaining about systemd as 'against Unix philosophy' is merely the UHH in another form: pining for systems that history and technological development have surpassed.

The reaseon Venezia perceives the discussion to be heated is rather simple if you see the earlier article linked in this story. If your opposition to systemd comes down to a hate-fuelled rant against the developers, you shouldn't be surprised if you get heated reactions.

TL;DR: Venezia is a troll

1) The developers are often uncooperative assholes

How cooperative would you be if you get called asshole?

I have no idea what the point of comparing those two particular statistics is.

Maybe the point is to point out how stupid it is to concentrate advertising and journalism on a very vocal minority?

Of course, there's a possibility that it's the other way around: faced with more women playing games, 'gamers' shift the goalposts so that their self-defined boys club remains free of cooties.

Here's your 'strawman'.

Since I am not even asserting what you are saying I am in your second sentence ("Europeans brag..."), I am not even going to dignify this with a rebuttal. You can fuck your strawman for all I care.

Hahaha, you make it sound as if "being licensed" has some implication of advanced skill.

In Germany? You bet it does.

I wish people would stop projecting American incompetence at running government services on the rest of the world.

Oh yes, the Jezebel editors should just grow a thicker skin and take all the abuse they get, but God forbid they post a tongue-in-cheek reaction to a newspiece that might be construed as hurtful by the little boys, then it is suddenly 'criminal domestic abuse'.

Grow the fuck up.

The problem with Slashdot is that the moderation system actually works. You mention AGW, but I've found that while there is a strong denier community here, on AGW articles they mostly end up at +5 in equal proportions to the people posting scientifically more accurate responses.[1]

Why is this a problem then? Well, it takes several hours and rounds of moderation to bring a comment section to that state. By that time, although the discussion has become readable and interesting, it hardly pays to add your viewpoint, as most people will now be paying attention to newer threads.

[1] Note to the peanut gallery: read very carefully. Nowhere in that statement do I equate 'scientifically more accurate' with being pro- or anti-AGW.

Of course he's not kidding. There's plenty of men around who seem to think that anything beyond "Yes master, I will blow you right now" is militant feminism.