And the number of non mainline linux system outnumber mainline servers by a similar margin, and here we get the core of the systemd resistance.
Because of poor project management and corporate politics systemd have gone from being a init replacement to something that will never be compatible with all of the non mainline linux systems out there. having systemd maintain cgroups the redhat way is not going to work for FC swtitch since systemd cannot know about the switching application the way a custom implementation.
And there dozens of edge case like this were an resource rich organization gets thrown under the bus and have to abandon any hope collaborating with mainline linux if systemd becomes the defining factor for mainline linux.

Google who does sell linux based consumer products does not seams to have that much of an interest in systemd and is not in a hurry to adopt it, canonocal voted against it in the debian election and is still pushing their own cgroup manager, and is trying to implement systemd in a weird almost fashion and running into a ton of problems that also plague debian jessie, which mark the first time in almost a decade Debian testing is actually broken beyond the point where a end user becomes frustrated. This is following the mess GTK3/gnome3 created which spawned the unity, mate and cinnamon desktop environments, whith much of the same retoric on forums as we now get with systemd/anti-systemd

GTK3 went into a decline declining, following the failure of the gnome3 vision to resonate with the market, so it's far from certain systemd is the success people hope it hurried adoption will make it by the time RHEL8 is scheduled for release you might see real competition in the cgroup manager space, and a decent non systemd embedded API for setting cgroups permissions.

It never became stable, look at their bug list then compare with any other stable init.

Upstart have 10 part timers and dont see a lot of critical bugs sitting around, sysV and OpenRC is the same story, systemd have a bug queue the size of that for windows and more then 500 active developers, And every distribution adapting is have are facing more turmoil then they've seen since the late 90ies.

At the end it might pen out but since systemd is redhat 3rd in just as many major releases it's still possible that a 4th init system get's adopted around the time 8 comes along, or that systemd gets put on a diet, and reduced to just a init system.

It's political but it probably have as much to do with the irrelevance linux bestowed of the old giants at Xopen and FSF then it have to do with redhat.

GNU HURD failed because they wanted to put all systemd wants to do under one committee had they not done so they might have shipped, early enough for the FSF to remain relevant

I doubt well ever see systemd with a busybox environment so by making everything in mainline a sub feature of system mainline will no longer be able to share resources with the cash rich embedded world, custom server farms might even end up diverging so much from the mainline being pushed by redhat, suse and canonical that they too stop contribution code into systemd compatible components.It's what you get when you fal into the trap of wanting to manage every component you use under one umbrella.

This is essentially what happened to the BSD world, at one point all of the fringes, which is where the development cash tend to be, decided not to deal with the committee in charge and left for the anarchic world of linux.

It#s also interesting that systemd and gnome camps are 110% aligned and tend to be the people who want to put a central committee back in charge just like in the old HURD/BSD days, where as the people and organization who grew in the chaos that is linux tend to grumble about the throwback to old style waterfall design by comittee models of opensource.

The psychology of it is also rather different, like with the anti-gluten movement it's a side effect of how we have been trained to trust/reat advertizing keywords

Vaccine is injecting bacteria/virus into you and since weve been told by soap commecial that all microorganisms are bad for you and nobody remember that were also dependent on them to stay alive the natural instinctive common sense view is to think that vaccines are dangerous.

Gluten is similar about 1% of the population have an mutation that means they cant digest it properly, so it have to be declared along with allergens on packaging, and since the health and gourmand food advertizing have told people that sub ingredients are scary and since gluten is a sub-ingredient of wheat the Instinctive common sense response for some people is that gluten must be dangerous. Despite the fact that it is just as natural as nuts or dairy, which is declared the same way.

Where as the question of believing vs rejecting in climate models and evolution is almost entirely about declaring sociopolitical loyalties.

You just put it next to someone else metro area, that's how non nuclear Denmark got a reactor about 25km outside of it's capital. It's like most other can's about nuclear something that have been done in the past.

Sure it's not optimal but given that coal is killing the planet and might cause mass extinction level of hardship down the line, maybe it's time to redo the equation, and start realizing that even if we face a couple of mishap a decade on the Fukushima scale you still end up causing less damage then if we stick with the current trend of using coal to fill the gaps renewable wont be able to for the foreseeable future,

The problem is that all of that is theoretical future tech nobody knows how to make.

Nuclear can be build now it all tech sitting in engineering blueprints on file and can go online at almost any scale we want it in 15-20 years time, where as most of the storage/green miracle stuff is still at the point where none of the real world kinks are well understood and where no full scale blueprints exists.Once the clock rolls oast 2115 we might get a real energy surplus out of green tech but on the 10-50 year scale you got the hard choice between Coal or Nuclear, unless were willing to turn off 80% of our modern infrastructure.

There a lot of nitty gritty politics involved at the IPCC this dont mean the data is always cooked but the reports are often bended towards advocating the "preferred" solution weather or not the science actually says it can be effective which for most part is not the case. Some of the models do suggest that we passed point of no return where change can no longer be stopped quite some time ago.

But at 10 times the cost of a flotilla of mobile anti aircraft platforms are a carrier then worth it given that it takes one lucky hit to put it out of action.

That the core problem of the asymmetrical doctrine if you put a carrier at see into contested waters you open the door to failure if your doctrine depend on having the carrier, so the enemy is likely to get really creative in finding ways to sink it.

Land based planes have a role but only if you can field them in numbers and with the 5th gen what you get is a plane that cannot dogfight against a 4th gen, dont have the bomb capacity of even a 3rd gen, and is a sitting duck once someone makes an SAM radar that can defeat the stealth. And at 10 times the cost your back to the problem of having a tool that's just too expensive to field. It's as if nobody learned a lesson from the failure of the yamato to have any impact on wwII.

But without aircraft a carrier becomes useless and with it being the only big ship that matters those days, and with out big capital shops the lore of the royal navy becomes useless. The truth is i suspect that your mostly right those things are nothing but white elephants and is going to fall pray to swarm/saturation tactics if they get deployed to contested waters. And i am guessing that's why the Chinese is going slow with the big stuff whill mass producing out fast assault boats like the type 022.

The west's current geopolitical failure to do anything other the set fire to things is due to a myth and legend driven doctrine where everyone wants to fight a bunch of 19century wars over and over again, against an enemy playing by 21st century rules.

The problem is that the navy the politicians and admirals wants is not all that relevant in a world of mass produced missiles hit'n'run tactics, where the civilian population might not be entirely passive, and where off the shelf gear often provide a pretty good match against anything the secret military research arms can deliver. And people certainly dont want to learn from watching the numbers from previous conflicts but prefer the hollywood version of history.

What reactors? Most naval vessels use diesel, reactors are reserved for the unseen gunless submarines and the equally gunless aircraft carriers, since it just dont make sense on run off the mill surface ships like destroyers and frigates.

Is this merely an attempt to bringe the expensive white elephants that the battleship proved to be back into active service?

I though they abandoned gunpowder for their main armament before the first world war. gun powder is for small arms ammunition where anything else is too expensive.

This is the kind of stuff the Military industrial complex comes up with when they need to give congress a set of cheap buzzword to defend wasting more money on equipment that will never be used to make a real difference anyway,

The US stategic doctrine is flawed and have been since the Vietnam but just like the cavalry survived almost a century after it was proven inefficient the Pentagon is not interested in abandoning it's old legends and myths and adopt new doctrines. So we got more hi-tech and less correct trained ground troops, which is exactly the opposite of what you need for efficient COIN operations.

So Java Really is the new Java?

Developers dont matter if their deployments crash and burn due to library bugs before they reach first year deployment, and that is a big part of the reason the new frameworks aren't taking over the world just yet, nobody wants of have a fragile platform that need expensive devops to run for things that aren't designed to be replaced/extended every six months.

And to make it worse there is no attention given to this problem in any of the fad2.0 communities, ie nobody really wants to build the new standardized LAMP stack but wants to have a configurable stacks that each app developer can freely modify. Because they are mostly freshly minted CS grads and not paranoid veteran admins who have been through the hell created with you got custom dependencies, and library vulnerabilities are found.

Neither node or PHP apps are known for their high standard of security hardening, and nobody wants to deal with frameworks that are, because they tend to be alphabet soups of design by committee standards and associated mess, so in the end the platform with the least customizable run time is chosen because then at least you can make sure the libraries gets security patches.

Doing their hayday blackberry bought one of the companies who essentially invented the whole idea of internet of things, and a big player in the embedded market(QNX) so they have had a department doing that for a while, just not under the blackberry brand, but since knowing industry details is beyond most of the tech press we get snark and fluffy editorials on weather or not a mobile company can transform itself.

In essence what your seeing is that blackberry downplay it's old porfolio and tries to live off the one competent profitable company they bought doing their uptick, other companies have done so successfully before. but the thing to notice here is that the part of blackberry doing this were making internet of thing devices before anyone in the IT press even heard of the term.

No not really, there is no organizations in Europe with equal power's and status that are exempt from the anti-abuse protections place on the government by case law and constitutions, you dont see the crack down on diversity that HOA and local goverment in the us is infamous for happening as often in Europe.

Europe tend to classify organizations which have privileged status and is not "out-out at any time voluntary" of which a HOA is a classic example as having similar responsibilities for transparent, frees speech and fair process as a local government council, it not perfect but it does put limits on some of the more crazy rules.

The tendency for EU law(civil law) is look at applied power and not just formal paperwork, where as US/UK law(common law) tend to preoccupy itself only with formal rules.

The ECHR is also far more likely to jump into a politically charged case and rule against local government the the politically appointed US supreme court have historically been. And this just filters down the layers in both system meaning that a US court is more likely to defend entranced power then an European court.

Until you get to deal with the cartels and pseudo aristocracies that always arise when you deregulate industry, the problem for libertarians is that it have been proven experimentally that it does not work while they insist on only addressing argument based on a set of abstact theories.

People tend to forget that it was absolute property rights and not divine rule that defined the feudal society, where the local landlords(private property owners) usually did most of the nasty deeds, with the kings mostly playing a secondary role until someone invaded. It took collective action and activist goverment to break down the old mercantist system based on private investors with huge landholding setting their own rules. Smith was not anti-goverment he was gainst corporatism(the modern day expression of Mercantilsm). And the bad(usually landowner frindly) government practice that gave rise to those structures.

People often forget that Smith(and the founding of the US) died before socialism were a thing and Marx started writing so they never bothered to criticize socialism but dealt mostly with the policies of "The Company" and the governments who subscribed to mercantilism and backed the exploitation of colonies which were the core of that system.