CSD has led to many improvements. Just look at the gedit screenshot you linked to. Since we're able to reuse the title area for widgets we don't have to put a big toolbar under it. The editor actually has more space now compared to the old UI without loosing any features.

I'm a GNOME user and I want would certainly appreciate the new way that the settings looks. It looks like an improvement over the old icon grid where you had to go back and forth just to get to another settings pane.

You run out of capacity on the database server. You set up another one and now you have two. Problem solved. I see it all the time. They have lots of load balanced web servers handling all the front end traffic, but just one monolithic database server in the back that is holding everything back.

Well, being able to scale horizontally is still useful even if you're a small player. Just being able to fire up a second database host and automatically scale up is wonderful for the few times you're actually running out of capacity. Being able to scale up with little effort doesn't mean that you have to scale up big.

The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission clearly don't pay for an update themself. Windows Server 2003 has been end of life and unsupported for quite some time now.

All users have to do is upgrade to the latest version and they will continue to get patches. This will only affect users running old versions of IE on versions of Windows that can run a newer version.

They don't want to encourage anyone to use Vista anymore. It's a rather old OS that is running out of support next year so they do as little as possible and only support IE 9 on Vista until then.

How can you become someone like him? Just make things up and force distros to use it...

Wait a minute, that's not really what happened didn't it?

Journald does compression and the structure allows it to actually verify that the logs are sound. Remember that logs can be damaged for multiple reasons. Bugs are of course one reason but the more scary reason is tampering. Syslog has absolutely nothing that prevents tampering with logs. Everything that is submitted to syslog goes in, there is no verification that it's even the correct program. Play around with the logger command on a Linux box and you will be scared. Journald on the other hand actually verifies that the data that goes into the logs are from the correct sender and that once they have been entered you can verify that they have not been tampered with.

Something needs to respond to the syslog calls. I guess that could go into systemd init but I heard some people didn't like putting stuff into PID 1.

Take it as a good incentive to learn automation.

What does that even mean? When you enable syslog forwarding the journal will send it to syslog directly without going into the journal. You can even disable the journal log if you don't want it and only want to rely on syslog. So there is no binary log that can "crap out". It just sends it off to the syslog, just like sysvinit handled syslog.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here but what process manager are you talking about? Pid 1 on Ubuntu 14.04 is upstart and it owns both of those two services. They are as far as I can see running completely independent.

Here is the output of ps -ef | grep systemd on a Ubuntu 14.04 desktop which uses upstart and not systemd as its init system:

root 387 1 0 2015 ? 00:00:00 /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd --daemon
root 701 1 0 2015 ? 00:00:00 /lib/systemd/systemd-logind

It's clearly not completely monolithic if you can run two fairly central components without even the init daemon present.

Yes, in some distros. It's entirely up to the distro maintainers what options they want to support. That they choose to focus on supporting systemd is hardly systemd's fault.

Systemd was included in Fedora 15 which was released almost five years ago and we still have distros that are going to switch. This is one of the slowest tech migrations ever to take place in the GNU/Linux community.

Well, they could just use the exact same updating system that they have on OS X which supports branched updates. There's absolutely nothing unusual or particularly hard about supporting multiple versions of an operating system.