I understand your point about portability. I'm not sure I agree with all the trash / junk... type comments. Gnome applications are going to and should have dependencies on glib. I think interprocess communication is valuable so I'm not going to agree that kdbus is trash.

As far as RedHat driving changes to Linux. I kinda like that, I hope you are right. With the death of mini computing platforms we need systems to replace VMS and OS/400. We don't really have good enterprise Unixes. I kinda like the idea of Linux/systemd being a full featured mini computer OS while Linux/SysV (or better Linux/OpenRC is more like a traditional lightweight Unix). That would be terrific. Someone has to lead and RedHat has over two decades proven itself to be good leader.

As far as the port of systemd, we aren't disagreeing. See what I wrote above.

I get that. Which is what I said that a port of systemd has to be done by those alternative Unixes because they are going to need to make choices about their own daemons, what to emulate and what to implement... The BSDs are used to having to follow in Linux's wake. They'll go through this process of deciding. I'm not sure whether FreeBSD or Darwin will be first but I doubt Apple is going to want huge chunks of Linux code to simply never be able to be ported over to Macports easily. I don't think FreeBSD is going to want huge numbers of applications one simply can't run.

So I don't think long term this has much impact on applications. For the next 5 years those applications that have complex startup will probably have slightly reduced functionality via. init scripts.

Systemd is open source, it can be ported. Right now the version that exists depends on features of the Linux kernel. The other operating systems are going to have to make choices about whether they want to support systemd or not. Basically this isn't something systemd developers are going to do it is something IBM/AIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, QNX... are going to do.

GP was saying he wanted the choice to be made by a large committee. You are just saying you disagree with the large committee that made the choice.

No, I retired successfully at 51 after 26 years in the IT field.

And... "whoosh"...

Are you really arguing that the huge number of people all over the planet who have complained about structural problems with the Unix init system for the last 50 years are in error because you don't mind 15 minute boots but do mind patch problems?

OpenRC is a really good replacement for SysV init. A serious enhancement that keeps with the spirit, an upgrade rather than a rip out and replace. OpenRC doen't keep daemons alive but that would be easy to add. Ultimately then there is only one hard problem what to do about hardware that changes. OpenRC doesn't architecturally have any good way for handing that while systemd does.

Certainly if the argument were OpenRC vs. systemd instead of SysV init vs. systemd I suspect the advantages of systemd wouldn't have outweighed the huge shift. I hope distributions like Slackware which don't have systemd move to OpenRC so that it gets tested in environments other than Gentoo.

Maybe we would choose our next steps better if we worked together to choose them

That's how Debian works. Debian switched to systemd. Given the choice between:

a) Massive reengineer Gnome to support sysV
b) Drop Gnome
c) Switch to systemd

They picked (c) by a pretty clear vote. So the result you are asking for happened.

Yes people wanted the Windows registry. The people who were designing Windows applications and had to write complex pif and ini file interpreters to handle bugs.

X11 fundamentally separates application buffers and video buffers. Copying is an expensive operation. How do you fix that?

No wrong. Wayland has remote desktop functionality. You'll be passing far less data around the network using Wayland's remote functionality than you do with X11.

loudmouths want to throw that away to build something like Windows, when Windows is dying.

The systems that are killing Windows make greater use of sharing between application and video buffers not less.

What's broken is this. The initt system assumes:

1) All the subsystems boot quickly
2) None of them need to communicate back and forth about status in complex ways
3) The list isn't too long

There exists lots of users for which one or more of those 3 assumptions are false. If you don't assume those 3 then you would design boot differently.

What is being done to mitigate risks?

What's being done is large Unix distributions are heading the effort that deal with thousands of packages. The risk is being handled by going through package by package by package and resolving any small problems.

How is this going to impact how Linux fits in with other Unixen?

The 2nd most used Unix is OSX. That uses launchd. That of course handles the problem of integrating in daemon tools and cron like features into the launch system which is different than either init or systemd. If the goal were better compatibility with other Unixes that not init would be the target.

Anyway the big change is likely to be that more and more linux software is going to assume systemd as hard dependency which means that other Unixes are going to have to switch or at least support systemd if they want to be able to port from Linux.

This means the developing thymus would not be a tissue match for the patient.

It would seem like organs grown in animals would contain animal proteins and cell receptors. I wonder how they get around that in the patient ready organs? Freaking amazing. Not quite as amazing if the recipient has to live on anti-rejection drugs the rest of their lives, but still impressive.

Researchers also need to be sure that the transplant cells do not pose a cancer risk by growing uncontrollably.

Slight problem there.

you should give it another try

Why? What compelling features does Windows offer that I don't already have? I want to know about Window's value proposition. With software as a service becoming the predominant model, the software you need to get work done is available on any platform. At home I work on Linux, when I travel I take my Android tablet and work just fine on that. I can write and post stories, with pictures and video, from anywhere.

A few years ago the Microsoft faithful used to make such a big deal about if you wanted to do "real work" you needed Windows. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore. It's great the blue screens are mainly in the past but I'm still missing a reason to get a Windows device.