All of your substantive complaints seem to be a direct result of ignoring the principle "don't fix what isn't broken".
SysVInit is broken. It doesn't restart services that crash. In an environment with many hundreds of servers, the menial task of restarting services becomes a full-time job.
- Useless on a server - where you only reboot 4 times a year or so and never have to hot-plug anything or change wireless networks.
Bull. Lots of servers currently run daemontools or similar, or else they use some other hack, because the SysVinit doesn't have any way to restart services (like crond) the one time they exit after running fine for months...
Alternatively, somebody has to take the time to set-up exhaustive monitoring, including ALL the trivial services running on the servers, and some dummy has to watch it around the clock, and manually perform this extremely simple and menial task. Or else maybe you're the dummy who gets paged at 3AM to do a trivial service restart, due to some simple and transitory event.
I would have been just as happy with upstart or anything else, but it was a dammed nuisance lacking that 30 year-old feature, and downright embarrassing that Linux still lacked it, while it's been working well in the base of Windows since the first version of NT.
some bullets in the original changed to a symbol that looks like a man's junk.
Ah, good old Freudian-bullets... That's LibreOffice's killer feature over MS Word, you know?
The only time you have to restart Linux is if you change Kernel or Kernel header files. Otherwise just upgrade and walk away without having to reboot.
Does apt-get (or yum) automatically restart every service and program that uses a library that it has updated?
No? Then you can't just 'walk away' if you care about security in the slightest. Your running Apache will continue using the buggy old OpenSSL version until you restart the service. You *could* take your system down to single-user "emergency" mode, then back up... That's technically not a reboot, but close enough that most people would call it that.
If a site post a story and there's nobody to read it, does it cover the news?
I'm sure there are people on Reddit (or Digg, or StumbleUpon) saying the same thing about stories posted to
A gigantic crater with lava flowing through it, will look an awful lot like something "split the Earth apart" to most people.
we're worried about dying from Global Warming . . . getting hit by an asteroid . . . an Ebola epidemic . . . but nobody seems concerned that maybe the Earth could bust apart at its seems.
You're kidding, right?
Just after people's terror of word-ending asteroids wore off, the media was pushing the Yellowstone Supervolcano (very hard) as the thing we should all be pissing our pants about. And they really never gave-up on it, either:
http://www.inquisitr.com/10848...
http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/...
When the headlines read "Massive Quake Hits Bay Area!", most people will think of places like San Francisco and Oakland.
And when headlines read "Southern California" most people think of Los Angeles...
Why should headlines cater to stupid people?
Your anecdotal experience is directly contradicted by lots of other anecdotal experience out there.
Certainly no manufacturers claim their tapes can hold data reliably for decades, particularly since the repeated-contact and non-solid-state nature of reel-fed tape makes multi-use reliability basically impossible.
Meanwhile, Sony certainly did advertise and guarantee the reliability of their WORM MO disc technology for multi-decade archival purposes.
Desktops and the laser printer are all hard-wired. But we have two laptops, two phones, two tablets, and the Blu-ray player that are all wireless. Sometimes a third laptop. That puts me squarely in 7-8 territory.
I never understood what motivates pedants to waste everyone's time when nobody else cares.
The relevant phrase is an old journalism chestnut:
"Don't bury the lead!"
MO disks require (IIRC) a bit to be raised to a very high temperature to alter, while bluray just requires the organic dye to degrade (as they all do).
There are at least 3 distinct types of Blu-ray discs: Commercially pressed, -R, and -RW (well, they call them -RE, but... meh).
Only one of the three types uses an organic dye that degrades. Instead BD-RW has much in common with MO discs, and was reportedly the first format Sony developed, thanks to their existing MO technology.
You'd have to be ignorant or foolish to rely on dye-based mediums like bluray for anything archival.
You are sadly showing your ignorance of disc technology. I've handled enough of both in my time to make a far better judgment than an armchair expert.
LTO didn't even exist 30 years ago, so your experience says little to nothing about archival quality.
Enterprises have been doing this with tape for 30 years.
Tape has always had a limited life-span and is too easily damaged to completely trust with high-value archival data. Instead, archival on tape usually means "we're not quite confident enough to just delete this crap".
Meanwhile, Sony's enterprise-grade write-once (WORM) magneto-optical (MO) discs have been around for decades, are physically tougher, and impervious to magnetic fields, sold with 100-year warranties that even cover data-loss recovery costs.
BD-RW can certainly be seen as Sony's MO technology being brought down dramatically in price due to economies of scale, and intentionally to allow them to compete in the consumer space.
fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.
