Of course you can, but it's not convenient. There are almost as many ways to format log entries as there are programs that write them; doing a one-off script that parses a particular log file format is not that hard, making it work well with every log file is. When people say "binary logs" they should be aware of that we're not talking about a full SQL style database here. It's pretty much a text file with a couple of standardized fields so that journald can index it properly and so that we don't have to care about date formats (which can be different under different locales), with or without time zone etc.

What makes you think that systemd is just about booting the system?

All non-trivial software packages have bugs. There's nothing unusual about that and that's why we should used it, to find bugs and problems so that we can fix them. Most people will agree that systemd adds a number of important features to GNU/Linux that the old alternatives didn't offer. Adopting systemd will over time lead to a better system. Will there be bumps on the ride? Sure! Four years ago Fedora started out, took a lot of heat for it. Over time more and more distributions have switched to it, exposing it to more users with different use cases. The systemd that we have today is in many ways not the same systemd that you got back then.

Gedit is not a massive application. It's not a massive undertaking to relearn where things are.

If vim changed all its keybindings, now that would be something. Going to a menu conveniently located in the window header bar is not unreasonably hard to do.

It's the same on Mac. Windows does it the opposite way. The idea is that the default "good" choice should always be in a easy to find position, and the lower right corner is much easier to find than the first from the left of a set of widgets.

Not sure what you're trying to say. Lennart is not involved in NetworkManager.

Why is it a downgrade? That it changed doesn't make it a downgrade by itself. You can still do the same things that you could before. Just because the menu bar and the tool bar isn't there anymore doesn't mean that the features are gone, they are still there and you may have to do some relearning. You learn a tool once, and use it many times. It's of course unfortunate that the old design wasn't perfect; maybe the new one isn't either, but the idea is that in the long run it will be and at some point you just have to change what is there even though what you had technically wasn't broken.

Thankfully the loud commenters at HN and /. are not representative of GNU/Linux users. It's of course unfortunate that some users don't agree with the recent improvements in the GNOME user experience, but that's often unavoidable when you're making larger changes.

Actually, both Linux 3.13 and 3.16 are supported on Ubuntu 14.04 (14.04.2). Linux 3.13 will be supported for the full support lifetime while 3.16 will only be supported for a limited time, eventually wit will be replaced by the kernel from 16.04 which will be supported until the end of the support cycle.

People are overpaid everywhere. A lot of people are not, including most Americans.

According to that page testing (stretch) is also vulnerable, and a few people might actually use that.

You may want to rush if your web server validates client certificates? That is, does any of your users have to present a certificate to the web server instead of just the opposite way around?

The bizarre thing is that without the ongoing investigation it would probably be easier for Assange to get asylum in Sweden. Sweden expressly forbids ministers of government from having any direct involvement over administrative authorities. If he applied his case would in theory be handled under the exact same process as everyone else regardless the political situation. The Swedish prime minister would not be able to accept or reject anything, it would only be up to the responsible administrative authority to decide based only on current legislation.

And how many of them publish academic papers in theoretical computing science journals? I never said that being a lousy programmer means you're bright. What I said was that if you look at the people that do the really advanced theoretical computing science you will find that most of them are not the typical programmer type.

By calling it Computer Science we tend to think that it's all about programming the computer while it's actually not. Programming is of course part of it but it certainly isn't what it's all about. I'm a big fan of the alternative names like Computing Science or Datalogy. You should visit an automata conference and ask the people there if they consider themselves programmers. Sure some of them will but you'll soon realize that the brightest people in CS are not necessarily into the computer part of it, and hardly ever programs at all.