Ahh, and here comes the shill, with the usual personal attacks and strawmen. Yes, go ahead and praise Poettering's cult of personality and ignore the many people in this very thread who rebutted the nonsense that there was a need to replace "init scripts". By focusing on that point alone you get to pretend that systemd is "just an in init system", and hasn't embraced and extended a long list of other tools.

Evidence? LOL. More evidence that you are either lying to push propaganda, or shockingly ignorant of what Poettering himself has said about the state and future of systemd. Or do you not consider the creator and manager of systemd to be a reliable source? Do you want to still pretend this issue is about "just an init system"? Because that would essentially be calling Poettering a liar.

I'm sure you won't bother properly understanding this... at least in public. Obviously, the goal is to simply bully the people who disagree with you. Sorry, no, we aren't going to simply shut up, and stop pointing out how Linux worked just fine, despite your unsubstantiated assertions.

You want a suggestion on how to fix things? Stop breaking everybody else's code! Any minor problem that sysvinit had has been vastly overshadowed by the breakage systemd has caused.

While the obvious answer is that Poetternig/RedHat wants a windows alternative they can sell to "big" software developers, a more cynical (and mildly speculative) answer is that systemd is an outstanding way to shoehord into linux all the things that linux users would never normally allow. PID 0 is an important spot to control; if it wants to, it can control what programs are started and under what permissions. There are a few groups that really want this capability, or at least the capability to add something optional that can later be a forced dependency in GNOME or some other popular package.

The first group that comes to mind are the people who want DRM and a protected media path. A monoculture that forces features on users whever it wants to change things is the only way you'd get around the problem of having distributions simply compiling out or otherwise ignoring your DRM. Systemd has effectively raised the costs of not using whatever future "upgrade" is mandated, because the tight integration means you have to replace all the other software you now use as well.

Another group that would really like it if a buggy, alpha-quality, horribly overcomplicated, uncommented, unproven, monolithic black-box of software was a required to use Linux is... the NSA. Simplicity is important when it comes to key services like PID 0. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the NSA is one of RedHat's larger customers, and that the NSA - while suberting NIST, Cisco, etc - submitted various pateches through redhat. I have no proof, of course, but you don't get security by assuming eveybody is being "nice". I strongly suggest listening to PHK's talk on this subject.

Finally, I'll link a post I just made over at HN. The reason systemd is causing emotions to run high is because it is trying to do to linux what has been done to many other tools: dumb it down and hide how it works. There are a lot of people trying to do that right now, because the idea of open computing that *cannot be limited* (see: "turing complete"). Welcome to the Civil-War On General Purpose Computing.

The fact that systemd is causing fragmentation - arguably worse fragmentation than any previous disagreement in the Linux community - is a valid (though not particualrly interesting) argument, because a primary design goal of systemd is conformity. Poettering has stated many times that his goal is to force distirbutions to use his one-true-way, and he often uses the supposed complexity of having to write portable code as an argument for why systemd and nobody else should be the software that manages the "core system".

This fragmentation means systemd is failing at it's own goals.

The SystemD developers are self-described unix-haters, who have very strong feeling against ever having to use a "shell script".

Aside from that, this is one of the big problems with the systemd evangelists: they assert that there was some set of missing features that "nobody was willing to implement" outside of Poettering's cabal. They never mention that they were the ones to make up most of those problems, and the few they didn't make up were already solved by existing tools.

(auto-restart was solved ages ago with DJB's daemontools)

I've used it and could list SystemD's various technical issues, but that isn't and never has been the point.

The complaints we have about SystemD - and the Poettering cabal in geneal - is not about any technical issues. Bugs can be fixed; bad design, antisocial not-invented-here attitudes, and disregard/blindness to any use case outside their experience are what we have been complaining about. After about 2 years of arguing the topic, we've had to add rudeness, blatant propaganda, and attempts to bully opposing views to the list of complaints.

Typically, SystemD defenders - such as yourself - spend a lot of time and effort disrupting forums and discussion threads by posting strawmen, non-sequiters, or simply praising SystemD as it applies to very narrow use-cases. Recently, the tactic has bene what you are doing right now: accuse the opposition of being "old" or "luddite" or "hating change". It is quite telling, actually: a big complaint against SystemD's development style (as mentioned in this article if you bothered to RTFA) is that they don't bother to understand how people outside their immediate group actually use their computers, or what their needs are. Comments like this are exactly what we're talking about.

Nobody has been saying systemd should be banned or that you wanting to use it is bad. Nobody has said OpenRC or sysvinit should be the only option. If some tool solves problems for you or make your life easier - or even if you just like the tool's style/asthetics - then use it. What we're complaining about, more than anything else, is the tight coupling that SystemD has been doing, as it prevents everbody else from having that same freedom of choice.

Once, a very long time ago (internet years) when an image of a certain borg-ified CEO was common, there was a phrase that was commonly used to describe Microsoft's monopolistic actions against competing technologies: embrace, extend and extinguish. Many discussions on slashdot warned about how Microsoft was trying to "embrace and extend" various standards such as Kerberos.

So instult us if you like - it makes our arguments against SystemD's attitude for us. You can even sit in ignorance, if you desire, while Poettering embraces and extends linux so he can remove all the useful parts form it. The rest of us that have watched this happen before will continue using Free Software that preserves freedoms such as the freedom to choose your init system. We have been marginalized and a social outcast in the past and are used to crap like this. Just remember that it was that same freedom of choice that provided a place for SystemD to be developed in the first place.

You may want to read that last line again...

I'm not actually advocating an amendment; I'm suggesting that if powers were *actually needed* (then the public would likely be willing to work with the intelligence and law-enforcement communities. The fact that it's so obviously NOT an "actual need", that these unamerican cowards don't even TRY the lawful route and instead jump straight to dissembling and obfuscation betrays their guilty mind. A "proof-by-contradiction", more or less.

A law enforcement agency invented or discovered a new technique, that can help them in their job? Great! It's good to hear that they are exercising their creatived talents and advancing their field. As long as the new methods are legal and constitutional, there is no problem. If, on the other hand, it croses the constitutional limits in small ways, that's understandable - time change, and if the proposal is reaonable, the constitution can change with it.

So the simple solution is to see if an Amendment can be passed to allow it. Worries about criminals finding out aren't relevant - you can' t use it in a court anyway. As for worries about the NSA or CIA flying in to classify it, well, it's a LOT harder to put that geenie back in the bottle once amendment debates start happening. Even in the worse case where this particular case is ruined from the public disclosure, the investment towards free use of a new category of tools in the future could easly be worth the setback.

Now, I'm sure a lot of you are thinking I'm being sarcastic (or delusional). It's not like such an amendment would ever have a chance at passing, right? Well... that's hard to say. I would probably be against it as initially proposed, but that's not relevant - by making the proposal, and opening up the topic for public discussion and public input, instead of working in secret, maybe we - the citizens - can negotiatiate with our neighbors and figure out a way to allow this new law-enforcement technique. How can we know how such a debate would go? Yes, it's a risk, but so is working in secret, hoping nobody finds out about some new technique.

Maybe it just needs some ground rules about when/where it can be used. Maybe we could allow it if it had some sort of oversight/watchdog group. Maybe we can invent some new type of social compromise; after all, it's a new technique - maybe it needs a new way of fitting into our legal system.

On the other hand, maybe...

...it only needs a warrant.

Stop right there.
Some random telecommunications engineer and a lobbyist ain't the same fucking thing.

Ain't no fukcing ballpark neither.
Now, look, maybe your way of judging bias differes from mine, but, you know,
having some personal biases and having a job that literally tries to biasing people
for a 3rd party ain't the same fucking ballpark.

It ain't the same league.
It ain't even the same fucking sport.

I think there's a slight misscommunication here (probably on my part).

The instability in NK isn't only from a change in attitude, though that HAS been significant in recent years. The instability comes from the fact that it's getting harder and harder to ignore the *starving population* and *rapidly failing "industry"*. Even the strongest True Believer in the Kim family regime has to be doing an increasinly absurd amount of justification. The fact that some (still VERY small, but growing) portion of the population has started to look outside that carefully controlled box is a byproduct of this decay. There are many parts of NK that are really only holding together by the thinest of threads, and that imbalance is harder to support when you run out of natural resources and productiivty to pillage.

Hence the problem for China: if NK went full rebellion, tthat would sugest there's a certain critical mass of people within NK that could handle stuff like rebuilding their infrastructure, at least in principle. After the dust settles, go in with some UN people to offer a bit of financial or industrial help while they bootstarp. As bad as revolutions are, that situation at least has a "reasonable" chance at a stable, not-horribly-expensive-for-China outcome.

Unfortunately, as you note, there ISN'T enough support for a traditional rebellion. It's a big change in attitude for NK, but you can't erase that much indoctroination overnight. They likely will need a nation's worht of "deprogrammers"/exit-councelers or somesuch, which is *not* something China (or anybody) really wants to be suck providing.

So many people here obviously haven't learned anything new about the NK situation in the last 10 yeears, or even the last 5.

Basically any real "stability" in the country died with Kim Jong-il. It probably collapsed much earlier, though that gets harder to pin down the further you go back. The key point, though, is what once was a more-or-less unified group of fanatics has slowly come to realize that there's another world out there, and the reality of what their leaders are has become harder and harder to ignore.

Doubt this? Think there's still some kind of politics or ideology at work here, making NK the same "annoyance" they were 10 - or even 5 - years ago? Then watch this brave NK woman publicly confront a soldier, shame him, and chase him off .

  A handful of years ago that would have been suicidal - or worse.

Oh, and China? The politics of the past doesn't matter. What they know now is that there are a VERY large number of people - mostly decent people, most likely - that have lived their whole lives in what was, more or less, a cult. And they know that there is a very real risk that those "[sometimes former] cult members" could become "starving refugees" almost overnight.

Even if they wanted to, that's a crisis on a scale not even China can sweep under a rug. They are facing the possiblity of being neighbors to a country with a small number of fanatics/old-guard that no longer have real power (enough to be a problem, though), a MASSIVE numbre of people who really need some sort of deprogramming/cult-exit-councelor, and some unknown mix of economic assistance, knowledge assistance/guidance, etc. If they end up with an incredible amount of luck, the people of NK might just be able to so they can bootstrap their country into something aproaching sustainable.

I suspect that China, more than anything, wishes they could simply get rid of this mess.

I have read the news, and while there are quite a few spots around the world - some of them islamic. None of them are particularly threatening. We have a military that drawfs the militaries of the rest of the world combined.

Or are you saying that the fine men and women in our various armed forces are so incompetent that they couldn't defend against an attack from a far smaller, far weaker enemy? (not to mention all those impressive tool and weaponss we've invented) Such a position would be rather insulting to those serving to defend this country.

To suggest that any small terrorist group is any kind of actual threat implies that either 1) you have no idea wthat you're talking about ("the fool"), 2) you are unable to tell the difference between political rhetoric and a an actual threat of attack ("the easily frightened"), or 3) you're trying to scare other people with bogeymen in an effort to push another agenda ("the shill").

Maybe you'll find something if you look.

You know what I see in the news/etc? Certain US agencies and elected officials breaking their oaths to the constitution, spreading panic to get what they want, and generally doing their best to ruing this country's reputation.

So ou're right - we should keep up with the news and learn from the real threat: the unamerican traitors that are trying to destroy the very things this country if founded upon.

Please, go watch the talk I mentioned in some other posts.

You really, REALLY need to listen to the lessons in the talk. The the current "You'll get over it" attitude hurt fark a lot, and it will hurt you too. The talk covers the issue VERY well, though, and there is still time to reverse course by following the lesson the talk presents. They clearly show a way you CAN intoduce a new set of features like your beta in a way that doesn't scare existing users.

In all seriousness, this will be the most important hour of video you'll watch in years. Learn from those that made mistakes in the past... and were kind enough to *discuss* those mistakes in public so we can avoide repeating the failures!

As I said (late) in the previous thread, the people over at Fark gave an incredible talk on this very issue, after figuring out how to recover from their "You'll get over it" incident. It is literally the perfect discussion of the ways /. is failing hard right now.

As you say, it's about a fundamental miss-understanding of relationship, by thinking of your members as an "audience", and not peers. Even worse, they are peers that are only here because it's the current familiar ploace to "hang out" at. Piss them off - or even simply surprise them the wrong way and they will simply go hang out somewhere else.

(*sigh* - the /. staff doing the beta *REALLY* needs to watch this talk ASAP, because they are currently doing basically *every* single bad move discussed in the talk. Yes, you there, slashdot staff - drop what you're doing and watch this talk right now. There's a good chance you know the incident I'm refering to with the phrase "You'll get over it", and you need to listen to these lessons from those that walked the path your're currently on. You still have time to reverse course, if you change right now)

To the /. staff creating this new "beta" project, and anybody else concerned with the change:

You need to watch this talk from NOTACON 8 by Joe Peacock of fark.com. It is an amazing pice of introspection about how they seriously pissed off their users with a new design, - costing them most of their readership (aka "income").

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

The issue is one of "buy-in", and how it doesn't matter if a change is actually objectively "better" - the problem is that you should never surprise your users. WIth any social "hang out spot", people are going there more because they are used to it and just want to "hang out" in a familiar place.

Even if a change is a true improvement (which is rare, as most changes are subjective anyway), forcing ANY big change is disruptive.

As an example, imaging you went to your favorite resturant, expecting to get that cool sandwitch that you order every time you go there. One day, you show up, and they've changed the wallpaper, re-arranged the tables, and worst of all, the entire sandwitch section of the menu has been replaced with gourmet pasta dishes.

Maybe you like pasta. Maybe it actually would be a higher quality meal. Maybe re-arranging the tables allws them to fit more people in so you don't have to wait when there is a crowd. Unfortuately, none of that matters - at a base emotional level, you're still angry because you weren't able to get that sandwitch you were hoping for.

There are ways to introduce changes: add them picemeal, opt-in. That way, people can warm up to the new features on their own time. The talk examines these methods in more detail.

So i implore the /. staff to watch that talk and listen to its lessons - and warnings, because neither a literal nor figurative "Youll get over it" is the correct way of handling this situation.

Yah, they could use an editor. Do note, though, that many of the authors have been at this for years now; the weary may be showing a bit. I certainly noticed a bit at this VERY interesting talk by two of the authors (Drake, Binney, with Jesselyn Radack also speaking) from a year ago at 29C3 . They're certainly not practiced public speakers, either.... but hearing theory stories told first-person more than makes up for any such deficency O.O