Because everybody else other than [that guy who is not cool enough for our clique] failed at writing a SysV init replacement that actually functions well and doesn't introduce new problems.
I guess name-calling doesn't translate directly to code.
IMO you have it exactly backwards on all the factual parts. I can agree that people will have different preferences, and if somebody enjoys using SysV init, great!
But on a more factual level, it is somewhat... absurd to claim that systemd does what it does poorly. To get that view, instead of listening to SysV fans, you'd need to listen to people who wanted the systemd features, but found they didn't achieve what they claimed. And if you look around, that is not the nature of the dispute at all. The dispute is entirely over 2 things: who wrote systemd and is he too uncool to use his software, and what features are actually desired in an init system?
The rational, technology-based arguments against systemd are all related to the desired features. The code itself is being heavily used by people who consistently report that it does indeed work as advertised; it does well what it does. Rational opponents who dislike the featureset of course don't see that as a good thing.
But if you can't get passed the hyperbole to find the real dispute, how can your position make sense?
systemd is better at every specific thing than SysV init. People who understand both and like SysV like that it doesn't do much, and that is fine. But that is not the same as what you're claiming.
He's accurately describing the reasons for systemd and the reasons so many of us use it.
He's giving the main, standard party line. It is not "propaganda," it is how people with a different view than you really feel about it.
Compare that to your hyperbole that misrepresents the choice, and ask yourself who is producing propaganda!
systemd is the solution that exists though, and is being standardized on.
All of the other SysV replacements either lack the features, or have significant problems.
I don't think you even know what "embrace and extend" means. Odd, given your user ID. Alzheimer's? Oh, wait, I get it, it was just "flamebait."
Yeah, system admins and developers just loved the only SysV init and writing init scripts! They hate it when they have to switch to systemd and instead of writing a giant obtuse bash script, they just have to create a symlink. Especially since every has the simple syntax and semantics of bash memorized, and they might have to look up what to symlink to since they're new to systemd.
You seem hobbled by the bizarre idea that my understanding of the existing legal standards for different parts of the process is somehow colored by my desire for one outcome or the other.
No, the law is the SAME regardless of which side of a case you're on.
D'oh!
*points* you did it again! You conflated ruling over a piece of evidence with the standard for conviction. Tsk tsk. Pretty sad when you can't even understand the difference after it is pointed out.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for convicting somebody of a crime. Why would that be the standard for deciding a factual detail relating to evidence, such as if you forgot, or if you're not a reliable witness?
If you're not a reliable witness, then it doesn't matter very much if you claim to have forgotten. In that case the Judge would be looking at which version is more likely.
Too much hyperbole and lies to even address. It is all off-topic, and most of it isn't true. You'd have to stretch almost every word just to make it slightly truthy.
Read the abstract, they didn't do anything other than non-invasive tests with recall. There is nothing "implied" by that. Implication is not science.
I'd prefer a more proactive response, maybe carry around a bunch of WWII concentration camp photos and wave those around whenever the Germans complain about "spying."
No they shouldn't be punished forever, but we probably should keep an eye on them forever.
Their history with the Nazi state and the Gestapo secret police is exactly why Germans are so bothered by spying. They know for a fact that gathered information can easily be put to nefarious use.
If they understand the history and are against having people make sure they're not subjected to that sort of governance again... that tells me which side they're on!
Luckily pretty much everybody in American politics supports spying on the Germans, so I can be sure I'll remain protected from them no matter what they think of it.
Did you even read the abstract? That is about disrupting recall, that is all it is about! That is all it claims to be about.
Or I know he's a lot more popular than Congress! And that is who he has to be at odds with.
He's more popular than W was at this point, too, by 4 points. Maybe I did read the numbers after all.
Nixon was at 24% approval
A judge doesn't have to make a perfect ruling, just one that is probably correct.
Any program which runs right is obsolete.
