As if the pro-systemd side was the only one with activist fans who don't understand the actual situation.

Oy... you still don't get it. For some reason those favoring systemd have been given a pass. I guess it is because a few distros have used it and people who support systemd who are not listening far outnumber those who have opposed systemd and stated logical reasons or noted issues. As a result, the burden of proof rests on anyone opposing the introduction of systemd.

Because the burden of proof rests on those opposing the introduction of systemd; it doesn't even matter if some are fanatical, because it has zero net affect.

The problem is the rational arguments showing that the status quo is better than systemd are just getting ignored and not being addressed.

ACID and that it'll be easily corrupted in a crash but never quite manage to explain how the plain text log doesn't have the same problem.

Plain text logs have risk of corruption as well, but unlike text-based logs, binary logs are fragile.

I would say it's true that the same can happen to both --- they both have risks of corruption, BUT the binary logs are much more likely to have debilitating corruption.

One byte out of place, and the entire file tends to become unusable, or systems that need to consume the logs break and can't read the rest of the logfile.

When a text-based log has a corruption issue; generally, it will mean a few lost log entries -- the write operations are fairly atomic. It doesn't matter that they aren't transactional, because text-based log storage is not as fragile as a binary file format that must be well-formed, or your log-reading tool goes KaBoomb.

With regards to logs; it only makes sense to refer to ACID compliance, when there is a relational transaction structure that must be preserved to recover the log entry. Generally with a text-based logfile, EVERYTHING that is relevant to the log entry goes to a single log line and gets written all at once, so this is really robust and hard to beat.

You wasted your money. Apple themselves simply eliminate the temperature sensor when an SSD is installed, as they run cool no matter what.

I didn't see it that way; it was a $15 piece anyways.. it would have been extra work to cut up the temperature sensor wires, splice and cap them, and this would ruin the reversibility of my change, in case I need to go back and claim warranty. If I had bought the Apple part instead of using my own, it would be an additional $400 or $500 for a 260gb SSD.

So many people don't understand, the whole point of Open/Free software is that you can fork the source if somebody takes it in a direction you do not like, you don't pay for it and you do not get to dictate what the authors do with it but you are free to make it your own if you choose to.

In this case, you are suggesting they should have to fork all of Debian, because that's the only way to keep something other than systemd once Debian switches. Every package in the system has to be compatible with the init system.

Also, why don't you just fork Debian if you want to have Debian with SystemD.

What makes you say that it's those who want to keep the status quo who should have to fork?

This is not the way Debian works; it is a collaborative project, and it doesn't work unless everyone cooperates and adheres to the policies.

The argument to not use X in Debian would have as much potential merits as any argument to use X in Debian.

The cost of forking is insane, and it's not really a viable way forward

Exactly. Using ridiculous namecalling for folks challenging systemd such as "immature twats" is taking sides. It's not possible to have a reasonable collaboration so long as systemd has activist fans who do not take the time and care to understand the criticisms.

Some cities have quite nice and convenient public transit, and it can be even better if you live and work in the right places.

Yes, and they're all outside the United States. :-)

School under Education License agreements pay about $34/year per desktop for the current OS

$34 is not a lot, but for 3000 desktops, it is still not zero. If you can use a cloud based MDM solution or open source based management tools, then your $100,000 CAL budget becomes a $5,000 annual cloud or on-premise MDM server license.

the OS is free on certain profiles such as small tablets and mobile devices and with everything hinted at with Windows 10 it appears that the OS will become further more affordable to consumers/end users.

Everyone knows the real cost is the CALS. The endpoint OS may be free, but the management comes at a hefty price.

The threshold of reasonable is usually determined by what it costs to fulfill the request.

$1/page is standard because it's a pretty good approximation of the cost of materials, plus the marginal cost of paying a clerk to locate and reproduce the document in question.

A piece of paper costs less than $0.01, and maybe $0.02 or $0.03 a page in material after considering the ink and the cost to operate a printer. (Your $0.10 in toner estimate is way off-base)

The cost is not for the clerk retrieving the data; YOU can retrieve the data from the electronic retrieval system, once you selected the document in takes 30 seconds. About $0.02 in hourly pay for the clerk; so it's literally about $0.07 a page in time and materials.

BUT You are forgetting something important. You are not paying JUST for time and materials. You also have to pay for "your share" of the idle time.

A video search and retrieval system is probably massively more expensive per unit, because there are likely to be massively fewer retrieval requests.

Think of it this way. Clerk of courts process document requests all day long. If all the clerks makes $10/Hour, and they copy on average 100 pages per hour per person over the duration of employment, that's about $0.02 a page in labor.

On the other hand.... if demand drops, and their request volume goes down to 2 or 3 people requesting 10 pages a day, or 1 page per hour per employee on average, then the average labor cost of copying a page goes up to $10.

The actual cost is a function of what the entire market is doing.

The true cost to each buyer is (Cost to support the entire system over its lifetime) TIMES (A Weight factor). Where the 'Weight factor' corresponds to the proportion of the system's usage attributable to that buyer.

Of course you can never calculate that. But if you buy a $20,000 software license, and only turn out to get 100 records requests of 1 minute each, then the reasonable price to copy about 1 minute of video footage using that system is about $1,000, at least.

If a person was doing something legal but embarrassing, should a business or political rival be able to get the footage?

Yes, after showing a signed consent for everyone appearing in the video, or after the clerk blurs the face of every civilian who does not consent, at an additional surcharge per minute and per frame of footage requiring censorship.

If you know that Officer X broke up an attempted rape, should every neighborhood pervert be allowed to watch that footage?

There should be a code for that. If there is nudity involved, the video should be tagged, and additional cost should be imposed on the requestor in order to censor any body parts, before the footage can be accessed. Also, the clerk should be required to review the video, before copying or viewing it outside the records room can be allowed, which the person wanting the footage should pay the cost of; not just the marginal cost of reviewing the footage they are requesting, but at least double their share of long-term infrastructure costs in supporting that whole system.

Computer science is distinct from coding.

In coding/programming professions; the goal is to engineer working software.

In computer science; you are expected to understand the exact meaning of the subject of your work. It's how the program works that is important, not what it does, and your assignment is generally to use certain kinds of techniques to build certain programs. It's not good enough to copy someone else's data and paste it in within CS.

Just like it's no good for a biologist to paste in another biologist's data into their own experiment and publish their paper on it.

The cops get to use automated systems to keep tabs on us, why shouldn't we get to return the favor?

It sounds like a special research project which can demonstrate value to the public and non-pecunary interest that might be worthy of receiving a fee-waiver.

Not like the guy whose big idea is just to repost material to make money on Youtube ads.

It would only limit access to people of limited means, and when it comes to public record you're not allowed to dick people over just because they're too poor.

They do it already; and the privacy concerns outweigh the problems.

You probably only need a minute or so of footage for legitimate purposes; on the other hand, attempting to exploit the footage for commercial ends should be prohibitively expensive; for example, $600 for an hour of footage from one Officer, I believe is sufficient that noone will be frivolously pulling an hour of video to post on Youtube, on the other hand, if you need to use it for a legal purpose, that price is pretty cheap ----- it's really just enough to make sure it won't be profitable just to repost it and hope for advertising, unless, the video is extremely special.

In terms of cost recovery, video media is much more expensive to store, backup, and manage that data, than text media is. A minute of video is actually more than 10 times as expensive as a page of scanned text is.

And remember.... when you want to get a copy; it's not just clerk time you're paying for, the entire IT system that stores all this data, including electricity, personnel, computers, software licensing, etc, and makes it possible to retrieve it needs to be funded by the fees associated with info requests.

No. Absolutely not. There should not be more than a reasonable fee for a copy.

$1 per page is pretty standard for copying paper documents, a minute of footage costs considerably more.

You haven't demonstrated that $10/Minute is an unreasonable fee for the purpose of limiting the amount of content that will be exported.