Oh, now, come on. If you're just using GIT for the basics, it's a matter of changing the name of the command you're running. It's not "harder" to use than Subversion -- it just has extra features you don't have to use.

GIT also does checkouts/checkins a lot faster than Subversion. Usually 30-40 seconds vs. 20 minutes or more for Subversion.

Use GIT, not Subversion. I found, much to my disturbance, that Subversion falls down with large projects and corrupts itself (SourceForge servers, no less.) GIT handles large projects with ease.

The problem is you're using logic and science to argue with people who still believe bullshit WOD propaganda like the "gateway drug" theory.

They're not interested in facts, statistics, or scientific evidence. Like fundamentalist religion people, they've made up their mind and anything that disagrees with their predisposition is a "lie".

"Sorry, I can't work on the payroll, HR, accounting, inventory, or manufacturing systems because my toy operating system doesn't support those databases."

Yeah. That'll fly -- right out the door along with your ass.

Go ahead and try to tell your employer or customers that, dumb ass!

DB/2 LUW?

Oracle?

Sybase ASE?

I don't care about source-portable databases. I care about vendor databases that I have to support which I have no control over.

The problem is not the technology itself.

The problem is the banks and corporations that siphon off billions by leaving prices artificially high instead of passing along the cost-savings of technology to consumers.

Seriously. What is Apple doing except sitting on billions it's siphoned off? It's not even paying it's fair share of taxes on that money! Or the big banks, who get levied huge fines for their outrageously illegal behaviour, but just bill the consumer for the expense and see none of their executive or board members put behind bars.

Unless and until we resolve those problems, technological advances will just be a convenient red-herring scapegoat for distracting us all from those real problems.

Will it run my databases and dev tools? If not, it's a user environment and I could care less about that.

But that's just it, isn't it? Ubuntu switched to Upstart. AIX has it's own methodology. HP-UX probably has another one. OS/X, still another.

You learn the tools you have available to do the job; you don't sit there like a whiny-assed 2-year old bitching that you had to learn something new for the first time in 20 years!

Obligatory car analogy: Worrying about systemd seems like worrying about what brand of spark plugs are in your new car.

That's what it comes down to for me: Does it work?

I honestly don't care about all the bleating and bitching about systemd vs. traditional startups vs. makefile startups vs. whatever-the-flavour-of-the-week is. What I care about is whether it will run the software I use, which is essentially Java, Eclipse, Ant, and as many databases as will install on the system (if it won't install on Linux, I can run it on my Windows laptop, and do.)

While I consider myself a "developer" because I do a lot of hobby programming, I am not and never have been responsible for system administration. My system never boots unattended as is the case with virtual machines in a cluster, so the issues people have raised about logging and such just flat out don't matter to me.

If I'm concerned about anything, it's about issues like the instability of the latest NVidia drivers that Debian pushed for Squeeze. While my system used to stay up for weeks at a time, the display drivers now crap on the system more than once a week. That's just flat-out shameful when you consider that I only have to reboot my Windows box once a month to apply patches nowadays.

Systemd? Couldn't care less.

Like most engineers, you're under the impression that your "magic ring" should automatically be given respect. Your whole post just screams "prima donna", and THAT'S your problem in interviews.

It's really amazing to see that visible wobble.

It makes me wonder if there are any available time lapses of the Earth-Moon system from a comparable vantage point? And would they show a much smaller but still faintly perceptible wobble in the Earth?

I most certainly do not assume anyone is an "expert" because they're posting an internet comment. I assume they're a typical, uneducated, ill-informed, panic-mongering, fear-driven sheep. And I presume everyone else thinks of my comments the same way.

The public, as a whole, is comprised of people who are of less than average intelligence 50% of the time. And from what I see commented on news sites and such, the dumber they are, the more they have to say...