I don't think Apple cares much, actually. Most software that would depend on systemd is GUI, DE and such (like Gnome) - and they don't need this. Text-based tools will keep working just fine. And servers - do they still care about the servers?

FreeBSD will most likely just turn it down on the basis of poor architecture. It won't be the first time they go down a different route (see also: OSS/ALSA/PA), though this particular difference may well be the biggest yet. On the other hand, there's also that part of the Linux community that is unhappy with this change, and they look like they'll stick to their guns, even if the most popular distros will move on. Seeing how it coincides with unhappiness over Gnome and numerous attempts to fork or otherwise "sanitize" it, I think those two efforts will be combined. At the same time, KDE is in no rush to bet exclusively on systemd, either. Long-term, I think FreeBSD may well decide to ignore future Gnome versions, and focus on KDE as the heavyweight DE, and otherwise suggest that people use XFCE or other lighter alternatives. Slackware has been ignoring Gnome for a long time now (pre-3.0) so there is some precedent there.

On the server side of things, I honestly don't think that systemd-exclusive way of doing things is going to have much uptake. Server software will probably add some support for it, but not exclusively.

systemd developers explicitly stated that they do not care about other OSes at all. If it is ported, then whoever ports it has to maintain it. Not to mention that they'll either need to port all the Linux-specific OS APIs it depends on, as well (and then maintain them), or else rewrite huge chunks of it. Basically, it's non-portable by design.

This is why the effects of this are so big that they go beyond Linux even. It means that software, in some cases, has to make a choice over whether it wants to support other platforms at all, or at least with reduced functionality. This doesn't bode well for *BSDs.

There is a big difference between registering for service, and actually getting drafted for service. US doesn't even have an active draft, but still requires all males of applicable age to register, and a couple decades ago the penalties for not doing so were quite hefty (if not enforced in practice). I have no doubt that China has even harsher laws on the books, and may well enforce them. The question, rather, is how many of those registered are actually drafted.

The paper that you cite does not necessarily support the notion of compulsory conscription. Yes, it does say that 400k conscripts enter the force every year. It does not say whether those were involuntarily conscripted, or it's those that actually expressed the desire to serve. The two notions are not contradictory - I'm quite familiar with how conscription works in my home country, Russia, and there also you see some people who are actually eagerly waiting for it, because it gives them a steady occupation and a roof over their head for a year (used to be two), opens up some career opportunities such as police or further contract service, and is generally vastly preferable to being jobless and drinking oneself to death in their home village of 100 people. China, with its much larger, and poorer rural population, should have the same thing on a vastly bigger scale, and their army deal is better to boot, so they shouldn't have any shortage of willing recruits. Now, if in practice, every year they only draft those that expressed the desire to be drafted, is it a de facto voluntary system? I would say yes.

I'm not sure what your link to the Taiwanese kid story is supposed to prove, since this is a different country, and the one where conscription definitely does exist, and people are drafted against their will.

Those shootings happen so rarely in practice that all the outrage about them is just farce, and the security measures are just theater. Much like terrorism, the chances of your kid dying in a shooting are so low as to be negligible, especially compared to the real dangers such as cars and swimming pools.

But because it is very easy to hype, and hype gets eyeballs - and therefore sells ads - the media keeps blowing it all out of proportion, and hence you have a moral panic about guns.

China only has conscription in theory. In practice, because the volunteer pool is so large (and it obviously is, not just because of the sheer size of the country, but also because military is a fairly prestigious and stable career, and hence desirable), they don't actually draft everyone, it's all volunteers.

As far as US is concerned, if you are a US citizen, then you have the obligations of a US citizen. What other citizenship you may hold is immaterial, and US is not going to treat you in any special way on account of that. If your citizenship duties are in conflict, then US will still demand that you fulfill your duties as an American citizen first, and hold you responsible for that.

In which language?

My paycheck comes almost entirely from people paying for software, but I don't think that someone "stealing" that software - i.e. infringing copyright - deserves jail time. Make him liable for damages, sure. Force him to pay them out from the part of his paycheck for a while - sufficiently long to make a point - sure. But there's no justice nor value to be had from putting him behind bars.

"Justice" is a societal construct. 500 years ago, "justice" for the crime of theft was often losing a hand (it still is in some societies). 300 years ago in UK, "justice" for petty theft was hanging. 50 years ago, "justice" for having sex in private with a person of the same gender was up to 10 years in prison in some US states.

ISIS is much, much more than just Sunni. They are more like the modern reincarnation of the Kharijites.

And the only reason why they have as much power and prominence as they do, is because we kicked Saddam out, helped kick Gaddafi out, and supported the attempts to kick Assad out. By rooting out secular dictators, we unleashed the force that they have contained.

No, it's "anglichanka gadit", which is exactly what I wrote - the implication is that she shits on Russia. It is claimed to have originally being said by Suvorov, though there's no definitive attribution.

We're talking about what's currently there, not about what has been there. Yes, the present situation is due to Western meddling in the first place, but currently that meddling has receded significantly. It may well end up going even higher now.

English was not invented by anyone - like any other language, it is the result of a natural evolution with a heavy influence of several languages.

Regarding "offence" vs "offense" etc, the American spelling actually dates back to the older British spelling, which itself dates to the original French word "offense" that was adopted into English wholesale. For some mysterious reason, the Brits have switched a bunch of French "-se" endings to "-ce" sometime after American independence, while at the same time changing the spelling of some other words to more closely follow French (like "center" -> "centre" etc). So in many cases, American spellings today are more conservative with respect to language evolution than British ones.

For the same reason, I recommend that people go look up "The Clanging of Swords" - it's the original ISIS propaganda video from when they just finished their first major push in Iraq. It has it all - mowing down civilians, executing freshly surrendered POWs, forcing people to dig their own graves at gunpoint and making them say on camera that "my fate is slaughter", forced conversions etc. After watching this, I am firmly convinced that the people who filmed it, and the people who are filmed in it (other than the victims), are a cancer that should be exterminated.

The executioner in that video was born and grew up in Britain.

As far as propaganda goes, this video cuts both ways. I'm sure it'll cause some more to join the muji ranks. It will also cause some more Americans and Europeans to scream bloody murder, quite possibly enough to escalate the Western involvement in this conflict.