- Hide everything in a binary blob

- Embrace monoculture

- Do not play well with others - especially UNIX

- There can only be one and so you must win at any cost

- Replace accepted standards with *your* standard

- Embrace, extend and extinguish because the people responsible for it have a culture which wants that

- Adopt Borg philosophy: resistance is futile, we have already won, why are you arguing?

- Be intensely hubristic: systemd is the best, therefore systemd is superior to all other systems, therefore systemd should to the jobs that other systems do.

This makes no sense to me.

Seems to me that re-boot time = startup time + shutdown time.

But, as I understand it, systemd advocates make a huge fuss about faster startup (which I have not noticed btw), yet the same systemd advocates claim claim that shutdown time is not important.

WTF?

>> unlike older programs where the bugs and failures are known and can generally be worked around

> How exactly is systemd any different in this respect?

As I understand it:

1) If a daemon keeps failing, systemd just keeps restarting it. Admins prefer to be notified so that they can fix the root problem.

2) If there is a problem with /etc/fstab, systemd will not allow the system to boot, and gives no reason for the failure. Admins prefer the system boot, and send a message. That way they have a running system, and can fix the problem.

This is just another tax-break for the super-wealthy. Nothing unusual about that.

These lavish tax breaks are not just for Ballmer, there are many such tax breaks for one percenters.

Repubs, and dems, don't give a crap. They are both owned by corporations. Congress has, something like, a 10% approval rating, and a 90% retention rate.

Throw the bums out, vote 3rd party. It is the only way we will ever have real change.

Police stop you, and take all of your money, because they think you were going to use the money for drugs.

Sounds unbelievable, but it really happening.

Jon Oliver, does an informative, and funny, video about it.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

John Oliver explains in this video that hilarious and informative:

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

This sort of thing happens in Europe all the time. And Europeans want more of it. They love Muslim immigration. Anybody who is critical of Islam, or immigration, is called a hater by the overload of PC mush-heads in Europe.

Look at the facts: every time the US gets involved, what happens?

1) Money, and weapons, always end up in the wrong hands.
Hamas is getting their money from Qatar. The US just gave Qatar $11 billion. We might as well have given the money directly to Hamas. Now the US is bombing Iraq, again. We are bombing our own guns. ISIS is using US military equipment. There are many more examples.

2) The US will be blamed, and hated, even more than it already is, by everybody in the world, especially Muslims.
Any military intervention will be called an invasion. The US will be accused of killing civilians to steal the oil of whatever mid-east nation we are "helping" this week. If we help tribe A, tribe B will hate us even more. Then tribe A will hate us as soon as we stop helping them. All casualties will be blamed on the US, even if most casualties are the result of Muslims killing other Muslims. And there is always that one-in-a-million soldier that does something completely out of line, and that is all the media will focus on.

3) The US can no longer afford the outrageous expense.
The US is drowning in debt. Our credit has been downgrading. Our economy is in the toilet. Yet we borrow more billions from China, to give to mid-eastern Muslims who hate us.

4) There are no "good guys"
Does it really matter if Syria, or Iraq, or whatever, is ran by insane Sunis, or equally insane Shites? Our friends today, are our enemies tomorrow. I believe both Saddam Hussan, and Osama bin Ladan where our buddies at one time.

5) Even if you win, you lose.
Over ten years, and I don't even know how many billions of dollars, or thousands of lives, or how much suffering, in Iraq. And now Iraq is being overrun by ISIS. Even before ISIS, it was non-stop terrorist attacks. If we stop ISIS than what? Peace for two weeks?

6) Other than buying oil, the US has no business there.

Maybe radical, but not violent.

US Christians are cutting of people's heads with a short knife.

BTW: there have been over 23,000 Muslim terrorist attacks since 9/11. Can you name another religion that compares?

Sensible, and functional, without an overload of useless crap.

JMHO.

How does making Linux worse create more Linux adopters?

IMO: Linux adoption is not about ease of use, it's about entrenchment. MS is masterful at using vendor-lock-in techniques, and leveraging the network effect.

Creating a huge rift in the linux community with this systemd crap is not going to improve desktop linux adoption in the least. In fact, it will have the opposite effect.

> Never see these discussions with Microsoft. It's their way (or the highway),

Microsoft Windows is not built on open-source code that was created by the community. Microsoft owns Windows, Red Hat does not own Linux.

Linux is supposed to be the anti-MS, that is one thing that a lot of people like about Linux. Some users do not like being shoved around by an abusive monopoly: be it Microsoft or RedHat.

That is what really matters.

Nobody cares if individual users switch to Slackware, or FreeBSD, or whatever. In fact, Red Hat would probably prefer that.

But, if the big companies, and governments, stick with RedHat 6.5, I think that would be a big deal.

I doubt big institutions would switch away from RHEL, they like that corporate support. But, I can see big institutions holding off on buying RHEL 7, and that would be a big deal.