Comment Re:It's great to see so much community feedback (Score 1) 112
As a user, I hate hate hate "release early, release often." It's a major pain in the ass.
As a user, I hate hate hate "release early, release often." It's a major pain in the ass.
And that is "upgrade only when I tell you to."
people are no doubt running to the store to pay for a roll of tinfoil with a Bitcoin, but it's really not the Orwellian nightmare that you might expect.
Wait a second. You can't call people who object to tracking paranoid because the tracking is provably being done. Why do you think people who object to being spied on are somehow nutty for objecting to it?
From my point of view, there are two problems. The biggest one isn't the ads themselves, but the tracking that is used with them. That needs to die a fast, painful death. The other problem, which is about the ads themselves, is that advertising is ubiquitous. When you can't even take a piss in many public restrooms without having to look at another damned ad, it's no mystery why people want to see advertising itself die.
Meh. When Netflix starts showing ads, I'll just stop using it. No problem.
Yes, this. And the switchover to digital broadcasting means that there are more people than ever who simply can't receive OTA broadcasts.
Beyond that, it kind of sucks and there's really no point in denying it. Netflix by itself is no cable substitute. There's no point in pretending Netflix is something it's not.
I'm not pretending. Netflix by itself completely replaces cable to my satisfaction. Admittedly, that's a pretty low bar because cable sucks completely. Sure, Netflix and the like doesn't satisfy everyone's needs (what does?), but there's no need to be dismissive of people for whom it works or accuse them of being deceptive or misguided.
Netflix compares poorly to a $200 cable package.
Personally, Netflix not only compares very well to a $200 cable package, it is superior to a $200 cable package. Cable offers nothing of interest to me that I can't get from Netflix, but Netflix is a much better viewing experience.
One.
I have a moderately long list of pain points, but the biggest one for me is all those damned dependencies. For the most part, my list is the same as most everyone else who has used it and found it wanting. There's no need to go into detail, as these details can be easily found pretty much anywhere that discusses systemd.
For my own collection of systems, there's only one use that counts: that's me -- and this is a big deal for me. For my needs, both on my servers and workstations, systemd presents a lot of downsides and no upsides. Therefore, I reject it. I would prefer the relatively short-term pain of migrating my systems over the long-term pain of dealing with systemd -- but I rather that I could just continue to use Debian without having to use systemd at all.
The summary is completely wrong. They are not discussing systemd, just whether packages can depend on a specific init system. I thought there was some kind of moderation here?
Yes, and this is really the key point. That there are packages that depend on systemd is the root problem -- it means that it's very difficult to use an init system other than systemd. If I could just select my preferred init system like I can select my preferred DE, then I wouldn't have an issue over systemd at all, since I could just avoid it entirely.
Indeed. Which is why I hate Red Hat with a burning fire of a thousand suns. I stopped using Red Hat for my own systems many years ago, and I am greatly irritated that its influence is so hard to avoid.
You can have your tamper-resistant logs right now, without systemd.
In my mind, this comes down to whether we want a better functioning OS or an OS that adheres to the mindset that I think attracted many of us to Linux in the first place.
I don't think that systemd, on the whole, gives us a better functioning OS at all.
Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.