Every choice has a cost and a consequences. In this case, supporting multiple init-systems dramatically increase the maintenance complexity. Every Debian Developer would need to run both a stable and unstable/testing version of both init systems, and some packages would have to be maintained in two different versions (talk about dependency hell).

But that isn't even the most problematic part; that is the fact that all non-systemd development have more or less collapsed the last couple of years; "ConsoleKit" bit-rotted for years, meaning DE developers couldn't justify developing against it, "SysVinit" is hopelessly understaffed (don't even have a build test) and haven't made a release for 5 years (RH/SUSE was the defacto maintainers), there is no development taking place on real alternatives to systemd's "udev" (the "eudev" is mainly a shadow fork by AFAIK, one person), "cgroups" development like "CGManager" will cease when systemd provides functionality to support LXC, and so on.

In short, there is a huge stack of development needed now and in the future in order to run a non-systemd Linux distro, and fewer and fewer developers to do the job.

When FreeBSD changes to a modern init-system (they will probably clone systemd), they won't support old legacy style init-scripts daemons permanently either. It is simply too much work with too little gain.

The problem is that all money donated to Devuan doesn't go directly into Devuan, but into a rather dubious organization, with no public oversight and no accountability.
Here is a link to the org and their pre-Devuan Linux distro:
http://www.dynebolic.org/
Take a look around, and notice how a "donate" button never is far way from any project or web page.

The foundation has a chairman called Denis Roio, AKA "Jaromil", and according to themselves, the foundation "helps them pay taxes", in other words, they pay themselves from the org whatever they like.

There is a certain smell of "scam" around the Devuan project, not so much its contributors as a whole, but about the small group of shady figures centered around the "dyne org".

Beers for ideas, Coffee for working.
So true.

However, merely drinking doesn't spark any good creative ideas unless you have spend considerable time thinking about the subject before. Also, the magic doesn't happen unless you have somebody to discuss the ideas with.

I don't think it is a proper term, but in this case I refer to music with large and very sudden variations between "quit" and "loud" passages. The real musical term "dynamics" is between eg. piano/forte, but I am more referring to an instruments individual attack (hitting the strings/drums/keys real hard). IMHO, this i something that neither mp3 or vorbis handles so well; they seem to take the edge of the attacks.

Just because some audiophiles are rich boys that spend too much money on bling hardware doesn't mean that all sound-systems sound the same. There actually is a sound difference between a pair of $1 headphones and a $100 pair of Sennheiser HD-558.

It doesn't cost much to get decent sound these days, and it really improves the joy of listening to music.

Sure. I probably can't tell the difference either just by listening to a random segment of random music in an ABX test. I do can tell the difference when listening to the same well known album in FLAC and mp3. The FLAC files just are more dynamic; more punch and attack, while even HQ mp3's sounds slightly "dull" or muted. The more dynamic and "noisy" the music is, and the louder it is played, the larger the difference is.

Just downloaded a ABX test from here:
http://lacinato.com/cm/softwar...

If I can get it to work I will try to see if I can tell a difference with any confidence.

VBR mp3's are very good, but it isn't FLAC. You don't need superhuman hearing to hear the difference, especially very dynamic music sounds better in FLAC. Hearing the difference becomes easier the better your audio equipment is.

Not having FLAC and mkv support for a media player is simply insane. Those who cares at all for sound quality uses FLAC, even my tiny mp3 player support FLAC.

That MS "boycotted" FLAC for years because it doesn't support DRM and isn't a MS-patent trap, just hurt their desire to control all media consumption on MS-platforms; they forgot a "boycott" works both ways, and that people just used software like VLC that actually supported what people wanted.

As the press release indicate, they have both a large debt and a negative cash flow something they want to improve in the 2014-2018 period (by massive price hikes).

Basically EDF are producing electricity above market prices and is selling below cost to consumers. In order not to collapse, they will have to rise prices:

http://www.thelocal.fr/2013070...

Here is their debt stated as 39bn Euros in 2013 and that the company is in trouble:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...

On top of that, the aging fleet of EDF nuclear reactors will soon have to be either replaced or rejuvenated, which will mean a huge need for cash, and is highly likely to mean even further price increases for consumers.

Well, that was the premise for the Google engineers article. They wanted to make renewable energy at prices competitive with gas/coal, and found out it wasn't possible.
That nuclear power can't compete on price is also why the free market have rejected it.

Personally I think it is a market failure that cheap but CO2 polluting fossil fuels are allowed to be used, and that a national energy plan must have it as priority to drastically reduce CO2 output.

Yes they did. It is the core of their argument. to quote:

"While this energy revolution is taking place, another field needs to progress as well. As Hansen has shown, if all power plants and industrial facilities switch over to zero-carbon energy sources right now, we’ll still be left with a ruinous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would take centuries for atmospheric levels to return to normal, which means centuries of warming and instability. ..."

Basically we have reached a point where even removing all CO2 produced by the energy sector isn't enough to stop the man made global warming and climate change.
Decades of doing nothing and being in denial will cost tax payers huge sums in the future.

Yes it is; the article says that basically nothing can compete with cheap fossil fuels like coal or natural gas at the moment.

Nuclear power certainly can't compete in a free energy market. It is a mature technology with massive research and funding going on the last 60 years, while wind and solar power have been neglected for decades as a serious research area. Danish wind turbines have increase their load efficiency by 50% since 2008 by tweaking hub height and blade length but without changing the generator or increase generator capacity. And there are more such efficiency and price gains to be made within the next decade, and unlike nuclear power plants, wind turbines is a nimble technology that can quickly be implemented in the field.

The bottom line is that wind and solar power are getting better and cheaper for every year, while nuclear power technology in the field have been stagnating for decades.

First, there is no real free market in France regarding electricity; almost everything is state owned, controlled and subsidized. Their national energy company, EDF, is bleeding money beyond belief, which are resulting in massive price hikes on electricity in France, with at least a 30% price increase of the next few years.

At the same time the French industry pays way more than their German counterparts, and despite further subsides this will probably be case in the future too.

My point is exactly, that nuclear power simply isn't economically feasible without massive state control, subsides, and by forcing the consumers to pay higher prices. The free market have simply rejected nuclear power as a worthwhile investment because other energy prices are lower.

You could argue that there is a free market failure that allows eg. coal to be used without its producers paying the massive costs of global climate change, and that state intervention is the only real choice in securing clean energy, and that energy price increases by going nuclear, is much cheaper than the absurd cost of climate change. But as a free market solution, nuclear power is a dying technology.

The electricity prices are low in France, not because nuclear power is cheap, but because they tax it less. It simply isn't economically feasible to build nuclear power plants that must operate on normal market mechanisms; it is too expensive. Gas and coal, and even oil prices makes it impossible. That was the conclusion too for those Google engineers. And wind power and solar power increases in efficiency all the time and can produce electricity at lower prices than nuclear power.

The only way the nuclear power is ever going to be feasible again, is by strong government regulation, and direct subsides by forcing consumers to pay enough money that the nuclear power investors are happy.

According to those Google engineers, Nuclear power can't solve the problem either.

The problem isn't cheap energy but man made global warming and climate change; the CO2 levels are now so massive that inventing a zero emission ultra cheap energy source, that globally replaced all other polluting energy sources in an instant, no longer is enough stop the global warming process going on for hundreds of years.

You simply have to do much more than just making zero CO2 emission energy to stop the accelerating global climate change going on.

Beside that, nuclear power also fail on price; it simply can't compete against cheaper energy sources, despite direct and indirect subsides. This is the main reason why very few new nuclear power plants are being build.

I think most DD will be much more inclined to keep supporting non-systemd inits if they weren't called "jackass's", and their name and their distro weren't constantly attacked, and their mailings list trolled by people who want them to keep supporting SysVinit.

It is a failed strategy to think open source development is done by harassing developers and throwing tantrums on developer mailing lists and in bug trackers. Asking nicely and making an effort to help will bring much better results.