If that's what you read, you need to practice your reading skills, cause they suck.
What I pointed out is that cgroups are separate from the init process, and can and do indeed run on sysv init systems too. cgroups has nothing to do with init, and runs separate from init no matter what you use for init.

When you brought up cgroups as an argument, it appeared to be from a false belief that systemd was needed for cgroups to work - in fact, it's the other way around!
And when systemd uses cgroups, it takes them over for its own purpose, which lessens the value of cgroups compared to systems where you are free to use cgroups from scratch. Freedom to choose - that's what makes Unix great. Poetterware takes away that freedom.

TCP isn't noticably more secure than UDP - the extra fields in TCP are unsigned and can be spoofed too. There are even a couple of attacks that only works with TCP, like source congestion. The only "security" TCP buys you is if you have a dynamic real-time alerting system for tcp sequence errors and similar likely to be seen in spoof attacks. You don't have such an alerting system.
Thus, security is implemented on top of the transport layer, where it works just as well for udp as tcp. The advantage of udp then is that you get more payload per encrypted or signed unit, thus higher speed.

That said, the main use of nfs is within secure perimeters, where speed and transparency is the main goal. In which case all you need is a honor system access control, designed to prevent users and apps from doing bad things no matter who they (say they) are. I.e. the focus is on what is shared, and what's allowed, not who you share it to.

Where Windows is very user focused in its trust based security model, Unix is very data focused.
A typical Windows share will allow any user to write and execute whatever they like. The users don't understand the "Advanced Security" properties anyhow, so implementing it will just lead to complaints. If a client is compromised, so is the share..
A typical Unix share will only allow users write and execute access to specific directories, no matter who they say they are. Remote root users typically get even less access, not for security but to prevent accidents. If a client is compromised, the shares should be safe.

Wrong multiverse theory. And, indeed, wrong experiment. In fact, the wrongitudinal level of your post is so extreme that it should really be on K5.

It's testable, it's measurable, it's repeatable, it's capable of prediction. it's either the simplest model that meets these requirements AND produces correct predictions, OR it is not.

Therefore it is science.

Maths is a science, for the reasons given in the first line. Science is a mathematical system, because ultimately there is nothing there, just numbers. (See: Spinons and other quasiparticles.)

There are many multiverse theories and they can all be tested.

Many Worlds: The theory that there are no real "probability waves" in QM, merely overlapping realities that diverge at the time the "waveform" collapses.

This is an easy one. Entangled particles operate using the same physics as wormholes. If one of the entangled pair is accelerated to relativistic velocities, say in a particle accelerator, they will not exist in the same relative timeframe. It would seem to follow that if Many Worlds is correct, one of the particles will be entangled with multiple instances of the other particle, which would imply that every state would be seen at the same time. If the options are left spin and right spin, you'd see an aggregate state of no spin even if no spin isn't a physical possibility. And seeing something that doesn't exist either means you're in a Phineas and Ferb cartoon or Many Worlds is correct.

Foam Universe: This is the sort described in the article.

Yes, impact studies are possible, but they're only meaningful if you have enough data and you can't possibly know if you do. You're better off trying to make a universe, preferably a very small one with a quantum black hole at the throat of the bridge linking this universe to that one. What you will observe is energy apparently vanishing, not existing in any form - mass included, then reappearing as the bridge completely collapses.

Orange Slice Universe: This conjectures that multiple, semi-independent, universes formed out of the same big bang and will eventually converge in a big crunch.

It doesn't matter that this universe would expand forever, left to its own devices, because the total mass is the total mass of all the slices. Although they are semi-independent, they interact at the universe-to-universe level. In this scheme, because there's a single entity (albeit partitioned), leptons cannot have just any of the theoretical states. The state space must also be partitioned. Ergo, if you can't create a state for an electron (for example) that it should be able to take, this type of multiverse must exist.

Membrane-based Universe: This postulates that universes are at an interface between a membrane and something else, such as another membrane.

However, membranes intersecting with the universe are supposed to be how leptons are formed, in this theory. The intersection will be governed by the topology of the membranes involved (including the one the universe resides on), which means that lepton behaviour must vary from locality to locality, since the nature of the intersections cannot vary such as to perfectly mirror variations in the shape of the membrane the universe is on. Therefore, all you need to do is demonstrate a result that is perfectly repeatable anywhere on Earth but not, say, at the edge of the solar system.

There's just an opportunity in Siberia - just opened up this week. Current theories are giant sandworms, graboids, pingo's, ufo's or an alien missile base:

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/myst...

Not everyone "gets" that advertising is needed. In fact, click-through revenue is so miniscule that it would be more cost-effective to not saturate the Internet with ads, or indeed have ads on the Internet at all. The Internet had no advertising at all until two Utah lawyers invented spam and made a fortune promoting their book on Internet advertising. That was around 5 years after the Internet was privatized.

Almost no site I give a damn about relies on advertising. As advertising on a site goes up, the time I spend there goes down. When in England, I watch BBC almost exclusively, ITV stuff is relegated to whenever it comes out on DVD. That has been the case for much of my life. When moving to the US, I abandoned television entirely simply because of the adverts.

Linux is one of the top Operating Systems and gained almost all of that reputation and awesomeness before IBM started their TV ads.

So if products don't need advertising, the Internet doesn't need advertising and users hate advertising, then who the hell is this "everyone" who "understands" the need?

I think it's more likely that more people are becoming obese because of exactly one factor: age. They are living artificially prolonged lifetimes due to access to adequate food and to medicine. It's easier to get fat when you are 50 than when you are 30 because of the natural changes in your metabolism.

But nfs does not take over and cripple your dns server.
It's the hooks into and taking over parts that work fine on their own that's the problem with domain controllers and systemd. It goes directly against the Unix toolbox approach, and stifles innovation because now you have to do everything within the context of the super-program.

(As for your testing, did you try with jumbo packets? NFS supports it, and CIFS doesn't. It makes a tremendous difference, especially for writes to remote RAIDs or disks with a 4k block size. Also, avoid distros that set up NFS to use tcp instead of the default udp. That's a huge performance killer, and not needed unless you use hubs instead of switches or need to tunnel the traffic.)

No, not at all. They produce the very finest shit eating utensils in the world. It's not the utensil that is the problem.

I guess some people don't forget what Microsoft was doing 20 years ago. They were literally bashing everything and anything. They were bashing UNIX with slogans like "UNIX is legacy, NT is the future". They were doing the same with DirectX vs. OpenGL. Even now they still claim OpenGL is legacy. Then there was the Netscape vs. Internet Explorer war where Microsoft was pre-installing Explorer onto their systems and nothing else. If you wanted to read Email from a server, you needed to have Windows, even it is was a hardware board inside a workstation. If Microsoft announced they were entering a particular niche market, venture capitalists wouldn't fund anyone to enter that market.

I hate that word "dead wood". Anyone who did have a degree, pass the informal interview, the technical tests, and team interview for a company, as well as continue to work in an Agile/Scrum environment isn't a piece of dead wood.

If a company discovers they have extra employees, then it is is usually because two or more products have been merged together, or all the development for one large project has been completed. Maybe they now share the same core libraries or features of one application duplicate another. But what to do then? Nobody is going to stay long at a company if they have relocated 1000+ miles for their dream job (say designing new applications) and then suddenly a month later, a PHB decides they want the most qualified engineer to move onto repairing broken widgets, and optionally advertise the original vacancy several months later because they realize they really do need someone to write new applications. So you need to keep people hanging around until you are sure all the problems have been fixed.

Some companies have internal vacancy lists where a job is advertised internally first. This gave employees a chance to move around if they saw something more interesting. Other companies just keep staff "frozen in place" where the only option is to leave.

The problem for Microsoft is that retraining isn't possible because they want workers who can bring in new ideas. If they had someone to train up someone for that vacancy, the trainer would be the person they are looking for.

If Netflix split its traffic among a bunch of Tier 1 providers, Verizon would still end up in the same situation. The same number of bytes would be going through the core of its network, and it would have to buy the same amount of hardware at the edge of its network to handle the incoming data. Verizon would enjoy no hardware or overhead savings from that arrangement just as it incurs no extra cost from it all coming from one place. The only difference is which ports get plugged into which cards. The bottom line is that Verizon downloads more than it uploads to all carriers everywhere and no amount of accounting will change that.

If Netflix split across multiple carriers, it would make it harder for Verizon to demand payment, though. It's easy to isolate one juicy target's data and sell them "access" to your customers if that customer's data all comes through one port set of ports that you can just leave unmaintained. If Netflix balanced its load across a bunch of providers, the only way Verizon could do that is to explicitly throttle or drop Netflix packets. But then it would be obvious what was really happening. Verizon doesn't have a problem with Netflix. Verizon doesn't have a problem with unbalanced traffic at all. Unbalanced traffic is part of Verizon's nature. Verizon is just trying to push its own costs off to other providers, unless we're to believe that the whole Internet should pay Verizon for the privilege of connecting to Verizon.

:-)

You make it sound like starving people are getting fat too.

If they are becoming obese, the particular individual has a surplus of caloric intake, if only for this year or month. This is not to say that they have proper nutrition. So I am not at all clear that the fact that there is obesity in the third world is confounding evidence.

What does cgroup have to do with anything? I run several systems with cgroup and sysv init. The two are separate, and there is no need for systemd for that.

Actually, they're all mine - no repeat at all. I have been a system administrator since the early 90s, and know what problems Unix like systems have. sysv init has not been anywhere near the top of that list. It was a great improvement over starting apps directly from inittab, and is something that has been working and has kept on working, precisely because it's so simple.

I say this with feeling: You are an idiot.
The problem is obviously not "learning that an .ini file has sections", but that you cannot easily use standard Unix tools on an .ini file because of the sections. sed -e 's/port=.*/port=587/' works great on standard config files, but not .ini files where more than one section may have a port. .ini files are inherently automation unfriendly, because the lines depend on a context you can't derive from the line itself.