You seem to think that anyone who thinks the complaints are overblown are part of some systemd fanclub.

Im not a full-time linux admin, Im just an observer noting that Red Hat and Debian retain their customer base despite the complaints that systemd is ruining the world, and we havent heard widespread reports of systemd induced system failures. That kind of makes me think that the complaints are vastly overstated and that the drama is unnecessary.

If things really are that bad with systemd, I would have expected to see a new, highly popular distro pop up in the last several months (or in the next few months) that blows Red Hat and Debian away-- or perhaps to see CentOS split off and do their own thing. We arent seeing that, which again makes me question the "sky is falling" claims.

If every major garage company started making garages a certain way, and a handful of people on some garage enthusiast forums started complaining that they were doing it completely wrong and the engineering priciniples sucked, I might be a little skeptical. Because, you know, if that were true, you'd have a few outcomes:

  1) there would be widespread reports of the failures of said garage engineering principles
  2) those companies would start losing customers en masse
  3) a new competitor eschewing those changes would pop up and become incredibly popular as they gave people what they wanted.

Im not seeing that happen with systemd, which leads me to believe that either the complaints are niche, or overstated, or irrelevant, and that in any case Red Hat and Debian arent "doing it wrong" as badly as everyone on slashdot says they are.

This chemical is generally considered safe. Im not sure if you're posting in the correct topic, though its possible you fell for the media hysterics baiting.

Its a food additive, too, so that may actually not be too bad.

Got to love how many people took the "media hysterics" bait, though.

That is an interesting and completely baseless theory, but Im not sure what anyone is supposed to do with it. If you have evidence to support it I imagine it would make for a pretty juicy story, though.

Before railing on safety as it relates to 2-butoxyethanol, you may want to look it up on wikipedia. Aside from being used just about everywhere as a surfectant, it is approved by the FDA as a food additive; Im pretty sure that means its not a safety hazard.

You didnt even read what he posted. The thing that means its not toxic is that the FDA has approved it as direct and indirect food additives. Read the 2nd to last sentence of his quote.

Maybe that 2nd to last sentence will help:

It is also approved by the U.S. FDA to be used as direct and indirect food additives

It is severely disappointing when the discussion around something turns out to be highly misleading based on a simple wikipedia search:

2-Butoxyethanol has a low acute toxicity, with LD50 of 2.5 g/kg in rats.[3] Laboratory tests by the U. S. National Toxicology Program have shown that only sustained exposure to high concentrations (100-500 ppm) of 2-butoxyethanol can cause adrenal tumors in animals.

Before reading any further, I thought it would be a good idea to see what 2-butoxyethanol was. According to wikipedia, in addition to fracking...

2-Butoxyethanol is a solvent for paints and surface coatings, as well as cleaning products and inks. Products that contain 2-butoxyethanol include acrylic resin formulations, asphalt release agents, firefighting foam, leather protectors, oil spill dispersants, degreaser applications, photographic strip solutions, whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, latex paints, enamels, printing paste, and varnish removers, and silicone caulk. Products containing this compound are commonly found at construction sites, automobile repair shops, print shops, and facilities that produce sterilizing and cleaning products. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions. Since the molecule has both non-polar and polar ends, butoxyethanol is useful for removing both polar and non-polar substances, like grease and oils. It is also approved by the U.S. FDA to be used as direct and indirect food additives, which include antimicrobial agents, defoamers, stabilizers, and adhesives

Probably worth knowing before getting into a debate on whether it is fracking's fault, or how its poisoning us (from that last sentence: probably not).

Regardless of the other facts, I dont see how expecting to be paid for a product that you made and are selling shows an entitlement complex. The things you mention, perhaps. The letter? Not so much.

This is obviously a story about Icelandic whaling.

What's wrong with Icelandic whaling?

(Also, I don't know how to spell ;) )

They calls them like they sees them. They're whale biologists.

(And the fifth reason whales kill is for the sheer fun of it. )

Oh god, it's rare to see such bad English here. Maybe they got my ex's brother to write that page ;) And can they not tell the difference between their accent and apostrophe keys? Also, what stupid stereotyping-about-Iceland-to-market-to-foreigners is this? Just letting people know: almost everyone here thinks this is an absurd product.

Ah, the good old days of the web as it was in 1995? (*boggle*)

Have you set your browser to identify as a desktop browser?