Yeah, I really don't know if that's right or wrong or what. I know I don't like it either. For me, multiple features of the UNIX design ideas that has made Linux successful are being openly violated, practically with contempt. Per the wikipedia page on the UNIX philosophy: the power of a system comes more from the relationships among programs than from the programs themselves.

Systemd directly harms the server admins like me. I don't understand the urgent need to have the init system minding other daemon's business. It's not that there's no precedence for it, but, init doesn't need to check time, be involved in my bluetooth stack, xorg stack, etc. other than starting it, polling it, and stopping it.

I should have closed the tab when it opened on an infoworld story.

Services to support Free software has proven to be a viable business model. IMO, that's a huge win. But, VCs aren't going to get too many IPOs out of that and infoworld probably has some newer advertisers thanks to Free software, but nothing like a Google or Microsoft.

The only threats on the horizon are continued support of increasingly draconian intellectual property laws. They impact everything, not just for software. Two examples: economic growth is constrained and the expansionn of basic human knowledge is restricted. It's returning to a feudal society structure. THAT, in my opinion, is the actual threat.

This, I think, is one of the best ways to form a bond between me and my son: I teach him how to take care of bicycles, how to use tools and how some minor issues are fixed. This also increases his hand dexterity and other skills. We're both having fun doing this, and then riding our bikes.

Knowing Microsoft, it will be 0% and 100%.

"Changed"? You mean, you updated it, I guess? We have 5 Android devices in our family, and we all have control over which app we update and which we don't. E.g. the latest gmail for android is shit and buggy as hell, so I rolled back to the previous version, and did not update it on my phone. My wife doesn't update anything by default. So while there's good reason to hrl criticism at Google for their latest versions of their softwares, at least they give people the option to use the older, less sucky, versions.

And all use the same model of battery pack? Jesus Fucking Christ, they made Formula E the as little appealing to nerds as the possibly could. And let's be honest, nerds/tech-heads would have been their PRIMARY audience!

Methinks a product/marketing manager got paid for a shitty job.

This is the first, and so far only, case of a FTFY that was banally factual and didn't try to push an agenda.

How about coal plants that have been spewing more radioactive particles per unit energy than nuclear plants IN ADDITION to mercury, arsenic and a host of other heavy and neurotoxic metals, into the atmosphere? Because of the bloody coal plants you can't safely give salmon and other large fish to babies, while it used to be one of the healthiest foods and most recommended for babies and toddlers, some 30-40 years ago.

Nobody said that "it's a practical weapon", just that it's incredibly dangerous. It's perfectly suited to kill, mail or deface for life a busful of random people. In this case not even the "if we outlaw handguns, only outlaws will have them"-argument flies, because you don't protect yourself from a flamethrower with another flamethrower. In fact, a flamethrower is not suitable for self-protection, only for attacking large numbers of soft targets. It's the perfect mass murderer's weapon.

This is not enforceable even in the US... right?

RIGHT??

You are writing your comment assuming that the IBM CEO actually gives a shit about the company's long (or even medium) term viability. This hasn't been true in the last 35 years in corporate USA. In publicly traded companies where there isn't a clear owner and therefore someone who cares about hi/her company, CxOs have been rampaging, merging, reorganizing, divesting, outsourcing etc. etc. all kinds of buzzword MBA-ese goes. None of those things were actually done to improve the company, but to make more money for the executives.