That theory assumes that growth can be virtually unlimited, when it's not. At this point in time, the only energy source we have that can deal with providing the transportation, food growing, and energy needs of the population is fossil fuels. If we continue using fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate, global warming is going to decimate food production. And millions upon billions are going to starve to death, if we aren't killed off by some plague or a nuclear war first.

Still, it does bother me that the biggest population growth centers are those least capable of supporting an increasing population. That makes the likelihood of wars that much greater.

It only concerns me in that a separation of Scotland would likely give the Quebec Separatists a second wind and we'd have to put up with their fantasies of keeping Quebec as it is now, keeping the Canadian dollar, and not taking on their share of the national debt. The Quebec separatists have always been in la-la land compared to the rational approach Scotland is following.

Canada has put up with enough nonsense from the separatists in Quebec. Personally I think if they try it again we should just fence off the original Quebec borders and kick the ungrateful fuckers out of the country.

That's almost as big as when Bill Gates stepped down from Microsoft -- it's the end of an era.

It'll be interesting to see what direction Oracle heads without him at the helm.

Second, the issue is not space. We don't want to cramp people into the empty Midwest, we want to cram them into cities.

Indeed: at least in the US, the problem might eventually be bulldozing the suburbs and returning them to farmland (and/or nature preserves, to maintain food webs).

Take the greed of the 1% down a few notches, and sustainability might be far easier than previously thought without tactics like disease or bloodshed thinning the herd.

How do you accomplish the former without the latter?

It's an ASCII pipeline any time that it's feasibly and meaningfully human-comprehensible; that is part of the Unix way. Any other time the format varies broadly, and has been all sorts of things including BDB — which has all the same problems as binary log formats ala systemd. Since the user-perceivable output of javascript in a browser is XML, you reasonably could use STDIO in a very normally Unix-y way.

None of which requires that logging be moved into PID 1. Instead, all you need is the ability to support a new log format in some syslogd. Unless you were some kind of moron, you'd design the new program to be able to log to both text and binary formats at the same time so that you could enjoy the benefits of both formats. Systemd may or may not do this, I don't care; there's no reason whatsoever why logging should not be a separate daemon.

cgroups is a kernel feature. It doesn't stop working because whatever process you're using for cgroup management dies. The process comes back, reads the state from /sys/fs/cgroup, and resumes doing whatever kind of management you wanted. If PID2 only manages cgroups, and cgroups' state is maintained in the kernel (which is is) then it doesn't particularly matter if the daemon craters, so long as you can restart it. But absent many requests for cgroup management, it may not actually even need to be long-running.

The only reason that we even need a daemon for cgroup management is that we're making inadequate use of capabilities. When a user (or script) runs a tool which creates cgroups via a mount, they should not need to use any tool for privilege elevation because they should have the right to manipulate one or more cgroups in one or more approved ways — which can consist of a couple of lines in a file which is sourced by init scripts. In systems with init scripts of any complexity, all of which source external files, no changes need appear in them whatsoever.

Even with a[n old, slow] HDD it only takes about a minute to boot my Ubuntu PC, and that's with a stupid-long POST to deal with the second ATA controller's stupid-long POST added to the base machine's stupid-long POST.

With that said, I am not against improvements to boot speed. I simply question the need for a replacement for PID 1.

Just think about this. Imagine the extremely religious and militaristic southern states with their own military and nuclear weapons. Now imagine that there would be virtually no one to contest the idea when they decide that the gays and atheists in the north-east need to be put to death.

You don't think the northeast would have its own military and nuclear weapons too?

Russia is militaristic to a far greater degree than the South and has nuclear weapons, and is extremely anti-gay (far more so than the South), and we don't see them running around killing gay people all over Europe.

I live on a paved road and I'm several miles (at least three) away from fiber. Literally the only company with fiber into my county is AT&T, and as you likely know, they are bastards of the first degree.

Please try to keep up.

1. Standards change.

So is the wankery of your comment.

Basically everything is doable at 10Mbps. It's an acceptable minimum standard. We'd all like to see more, but at least they're setting the bar someplace livable.

Yes, my argument was that altering the init scripts would have solved most of what systemd solved. Thanks for confirming that.

The scripts are unified by maintainers. I've already made the proposal that you could actually interpret unit files as init scripts, with the right parser which basically stripped out the sections in brackets, dumped the rest of the content of the file into a series of variables by sourcing it, and then running a unified init script. This would work just fine for any daemons which are long-running, without any complex work. All you'd need is a hashbang at the top of the unit file.

Congratulations, you just hammered home the point that you don't understand Unix, while simultaneously proving that you don't understand sysvinit. Using fancy scripts with the original sysvinit is still using the original sysvinit. You are witnessing the awesome power of the Unix philosophy. Because sysvinit is small, simple, and completely modular, the scripts could be extended to provide functionality which sysvinit didn't try to claim for itself. Instead of moving more functionality into PID1, the functionality can be implemented at the script level.

You failed to understand the Unix way. It's not to have one piece of software. That's the systemd way. It's to have many pieces of interoperable software which can be combined to perform complex tasks, and reconfigured to perform other complex tasks. So we have cron and at (which are often merged) and we have udev and inetd. And each of these things does one simple thing. It's not unusual to want to start processes in multiple ways, that is in fact common to all modern operating systems. You can start them from the command line, you can schedule them, you can start them from the GUI. Is that a problem for you?

And you still do. Only now, they're all managed by one process which, if it craters, will not just cause them all to fail, but which will cause a panic. Great idea!

That's getting harder to do as people depend on it. I may finally have to go back to BSD.