So you know the majority of system administrators? That's an awful lot of people.

I follow the RHEL mailing list and there are a lot of very smart sysadmins on that list, and none of them have expressed any concern or even comment about systemd. And it's certainly shipping, and it's been on the roadmap for some time. In short, for many people it's a non issue.

This is, by all appearances, a tempest in a teacup, mostly existing here on on slashdot, where groupthink has moved against systemd without any real argument against it other than mumblings about philosophy, or theoretical problems that haven't been shown to even exist in systemd.

If these "supervision" frameworks of which you speak were redundant, then why do they exist in the first place? Clearly system v has had some pretty big limitations. I've personally hacked many a cronjob to supervise processes started by sys v init scripts (some of the init scripts I wrote myself... yuck). Also as servers move into virtual space, and deal with hotplugging of various resources, it just wasn't enough. Took years to get consistent naming on network interfaces, for example, and even then I could never be sure which interface was which when I first brought them up (they usually followed motherboard numbering, but not always). To say nothing of adding other hotplug interfaces of different sorts. Even after the udev hacks brought some sanity, every time I'd change out a network card, or clone it to a new system with a new MAC address I'd have to either delete the udev config for it, or have it change to eth1, eth2, etc. And by the way, it's not even systemd that does all this now, it's systemd-udevd. So it's still modular and you could replace systemd with uselessd, and then run a separately-packaged udev.

It's also telling that other major commerical Unix vendors (say, Solaris, for example) have abandoned sys v init as well, or at least abandoned shell scripts as part of the init system, for a more comprehensive and capable system and framework. I'm not sure if Apple ever used system v init, but they certainly abandoned the script system in general with 10.4 and LaunchDaemon. They had good reasons to do so.

Mint Maya with Mate. Backtrack with Gnome[2]. Kali.

Also, easier to buy Sudafed (or Meth) from drug dealers than to get Sudafed from a pharmacy.

Stevie Wonder got modpoints.

My fucking monitor went tits up, and probably due to blown caps, you insensitive clod!

Further, there is actually quite a bit of evidence that HFCS is NOT the same as other sugars. Industry critics dispute those studies, but they exist.

I understand that this is one of those topics that the Pop Skeptic community has taken under its wing, but not because of evidence one way or the other.

Bocarsly, M. E. "High-fructose Corn Syrup Causes Characteristics of Obesity in Rats: Increased Body Weight, Body Fat and Triglyceride Levels." NIH.gov. National Institutes of Health, Nov. 2010. Web. 16 June 2013

https://www.princeton.edu/main...

Havel PJ (2005). "Dietary Fructose: Implications for Dysregulation of Energy Homeostasis and Lipid/Carbohydrate Metabolism". Nutrition Reviews 63 (5):133–157.

Dufault R, LeBlanc B, Schnoll R, Cornett C, Schweitzer L, Wallinga D, Hightower J, Patrick L, Lukiw WJ (2009). "Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: Measured concentrations in food product sugar". Environmental Health 8: 2. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-2. PMC 2637263

  LeBlanc BW, Eggleston G, Sammataro D, Cornett C, Dufault R, Deeby T, St Cyr E (26 August 2009). "Formation of Hydroxymethylfurfural in Domestic High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Its Toxicity to the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera)". Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57 (16): 7369–7376. doi:10.1021/jf9014526. PMID 19645504.

Controls that you can actually see before you activate them.

Mine was put the counter next to the truck. About a metre away and a foot lower, then it's almost no effort to lift the bags down.

P.S. Bennet Haselton is a penanagram of "Beta Satan Hitler".

The GP is arguing that there is no body of credible evidence

No, he said he "hasn't seen" any evidence.

The GP is claiming said link doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence

That is not what he said. You're putting words in his mouth. If he'd said that I wouldn't have responded to him.

Here is the entirety of his comment:

I have never seen any study suggesting that, except the single widely ridiculed Yale study. Not surprising given how nearly identical sucrose and HFCS are in the gut.

There was nothing wrong with Empire Strikes Back.

Those are hyperlinks. That's the generally accepted, even traditional, look for a hyperlink. You do know what a hyperlink [apple.com] is, do you not? When I click a hyperlink, I expect to arrive on a web page forthwith. That's what they mean. But that's not what these mean. These mean... random stuff. Normal words... are words. Underlined and/or blue-colored words are hyperlinks.

You're making a distinction that doesn't exist. A hyperlink is a clickable item of text. What happens after you click on it is irrelevant to the point because you've already worked out that it's a clickable thing by the time you've clicked on it.

And they haven't been predictably blue-coloured and underlined since the 1990s.

You say it like an item of faith. Despite your long post you provide no justification for putting boxes around clickable things to pretend they're buttons. Again, back in the 1990s, toolbar icons used to have boxes round them to pretend they were buttons. But we don't need that kind of hand-holding any more. We know we can click on them without needing those boxes.

When someone's learned to ride a bike they don't need training wheels any more.

Those are actual buttons, not pretend ones. Look, if you have something made out of wood, it has a wood grain, and that's very nice. If you have something made of plastic, then decorating it to look like it's wood is not nice, it's cheap and unnecessary.

The over-love of buttons leads you to horrible designs like this:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/...

You are in no position to criticise anyone's design chops, let alone Ive's.

No, your ORIGINAL point was that any individual word, by itself, was just meaningless sounds, and doesn't cause harm.

Correct. And that's NOT what your "experiment" was. Two people have told you, several times.

That's your mistake. Thinking you can judge through math rather than actually seeing one.

But you haven't yet found out what that limit is.

I accept that some people will want screens larger than 27". But that's not what I was disputing. It was your assertion that the higher resolution would make no difference because your maths tells you they are invisible.

As I say, having seen the difference between normal screens and retina screens on MacBooks, it's night and day. The clarity is jaw-dropping. It's like looking at something printed on paper, not a screen at all.