The point is that the rules make this new feature pointless.

PS -

" Exactly what do you think in the 1980-90s you were doing to the mini computer culture of the generation before you when you made client server cheap and ubiquitous?"

Wasn't nobody doin nothin with Linux in the 80s, and the PC world (Doom, etc) was already out and in full swing before the earliest (Slackware, for instance) distros were even started.

Your history is a bit off here. Linux's earliest intent was as a workstation OS.

1) where in what I wrote did I say linux started as a server OS? Neverminding my first use of it as being just that, but "year of the linux desktop" doesn't - and never - meant that it would be the year someone would finally use it as a a desktop. I used it as one for many years.

2) Linux's first usage (and especially intent) most certainly was not as a workstation. "Workstation" has that word "Work" at the front of it because you accomplished "work" on the workstation, versus the work being the workstation. When I started using it in 94, no sane person would use it as a "workstation" because they'd be futzing with their machine too much. The mother's day release of redhat, which I still have on an old infomagic cd pack sitting on the shelf above my desk (for giggles), was not a "replacement" for a pizzabox in any far remote sense of the word.

Linux's earliest intent was to be a hobby plaything. It was for people who wanted to tinker around and play their hand at writing a device driver, or otherwise really know what it was their PC was doing. As for Linux being disruptive to UNIX - no, it wasn't. It was just cheap/free UNIX clone ala MINIX and other "learn-what-is-really-happening" educational tools of the time, but it still held the same "do one thing, do it well" principle, it came from/was birthed from the community/culture of UNIX users of the time, thus had more or less that same community and their ideals. Linux also never coopted anything - it eventually matured enough to be a competitor to the giants that came before it. Poettering's stunt was pure agism, as was that which allowed it to succeed. Change for the sake of change is and has always been stupid - don't try to paint it as a cycle, that Linux started the same way. Linux was an educational tool, and 100% of the rebellion of it was communistic; Ubuntu quite literally was anti-community from the start, as a core principle - as is and was systemd.

(stay with me here...) Once upon a time there was a community. In the community were lots of different opinions - Slackware, Redhat, Debian, the weird *BSD folk - we all worked together, despite being of different religions. We'd yell at each other, and to an outsider we'd look as though we hated each other, but we were yelling at each other at the same bar while buying each other drinks. We yelled at each other because that's just what we liked to do. We had a certain set of rules that we all followed - and those rules were our real religion. We contributed code upstream. We filed bug reports. We did code review. We contributed. We Kept It Simple, Stupid. RMS was one of our major prophets - maybe even a god (though, we often started rolling our eyes and heading home for the night if he showed up at the bar to drink with us). We laughed at people who would declare, year after year, that this would be the Year of The Linux Desktop.

Then, along came two things - Ubuntu, and modern capitalism/culture/media/whatever - a mindset where there should be no plan, just go go go new feature new feature new feature go go go (I'm looking at you Agile, facebook, google...). Suddenly, the highest and best praise your project can get became whether it was "disruptive."

The *NIX/FOSS community would not have been a place for this to take hold, were it not for Ubuntu. Ubuntu decided they would break all our paradigms - they'd refuse to contribute patches upstream, they'd take simple processes that worked well and left tremendous power in the user's hands, and replace them with very broken messes of stuff. (In contrast to what we had...) they'd make an experience that mostly worked for complete novices - to be distinguished from most other distros that rarely worried much if even their initial installer failed because meh, you should know enough to know how to fix it yourself. They'd ignore religious ideals like only using OSS. And last but most certainly not least, they replaced init.d.

Problem is, when a lot of new people started in on the scene via Ubuntu (and the like), the established distros decided that they had always wanted their distro to be the desktop featured in The Year of the Linux Desktop, and realized they were losing overall "market" share (@#$%@ for those nitwits thinking of people as a "market," when we had been a "community" for ages), even though the number of users of each of the major distros was still increasing. So they looked around at what Ubuntu was doing to become popular, and tried to decide what to adopt from it. Unfortunately, this new crop of people included the likes of Lennart Poettering, who would have ideas such as this one, regarding systemd. Instead of seeing diversity and differences as good things, those of his ilk decided to destroy (yes, a harsh word...but it's pretty much accurate) the FOSS community. An entire set of ideals just...disappeared. No longer are simple things kept simple, no longer is "Do one thing and do it well" followed, no longer do we try to let open inter-connectivity organically solve problems of integration (instead, we just birth a giant Rock Biter to mow our laws).

Systemd came from a new set of ideals where solving problems that don't exist is great, so long as the big bad Establishment is taken out. I actually saw it as a bit of agism - where youth expected to be peers to those who had been around for ages, and when they weren't immediately accepted as experts they just co-opted the entire environment and left us old farts without any toys anymore. Oh wait...you wanted something good about systemd. Um, well, my laptop now boots 0.5 seconds faster than it otherwise would have, even if I no longer know why and can no longer really do anything about it. That's good, right?

the discussion is about internet access, not cable tv. That they run on the same lines by the same companies is not part of the conversation - there are countries that were decades behind us in getting internet access, and are now (seemingly) decades ahead of us. Those countries have found that providing broadband access to nearly everyone dramatically improved the economies there. Yet here, we still have people who can only get 128k (or maybe slightly better) from DSL. I have a client that has a location (which I'm currently sitting in) where ~300 people use a 3mb connection. They're constantly losing calls, have problems with web conferences, etc - dramatically hurts their productivity. There just isn't decent access available in this area - and it's in a relatively nice area of Houston, a relatively modern metro in the US. This isn't the 90s, we can get speed not measured in kbps or single-digit mbps now...we should be looking at gig, like they've had for years elsewhere.

Given the type of IT consulting I do, I have to stay comfortable with Windows - I've been trying out Win10 on my fairly new high-end gaming laptop, installed on a SDD, and have been amazed at how often a seemingly menial task can lag - or even hang up the entire UI. For instance, I started up IE a bit ago - while using a blank default/home page - and it froze up the entire desktop for a few seconds (even briefly sputtering the audio of a movie I had playing in another window). Seems to me like they have more to work on than animations - maybe they should focus on usability for a bit first.

I've got solar. I don't imagine that those who are in areas where they burn dirty coal and dead babies for energy are big markets for Tesla. California accounted for 36% of Tesla sales in 2013 - and hey, what do you know, not only does California have a growing percentage from renewable, but there's incentives for installing solar in California too. Oh and even in most of the metro areas in Texas, you can choose to pay extra to get renewable for your portion added to the grid. So....yeah.

This is the line (whole post, really) to which you were responding:

And I wish people would stop using the word "universally" when we even haven't reached another solar system yet.

pray tell, how is that not obviously a witty comment, in response to the complaint about using "slavery" versus "sweatshop?" The response was clearly meant to show that arguing over the word used to describe the conditions is silly. Mayhaps you should calm down, have a glass of wine, and re-read the thread. You may find things about which you are still infuriated, and some of that may well be righteous anger that I share with you, but this particularline shouldn't be a thorn in your side.

seriously.

how was "left the planet" as a response to UNIVERSally not enough of a clue for you?

PersonA said he wished people would stop calling sweatshops slavery, but said good conditions is a "universal" human right. PersonB said he wished people would stop saying "universal" when we haven't left the planet yet - meaning, instead of "universal" he thinks the word "planetal" or such should be used, since there aren't any humans outside of Earth's atmosphere for the word "universal" to be used. IE, he was makign a witty joke. So, in that sense...no, not "seriously" - instead, jokingly. (blah blah something about if you have to explain the joke it wasn't funny blah blah)

you're really going to use their UID against them? Seriously? I mean fark, this is isn't even my first account here (dated by the mixed case, which was popular at the time). Does that mean everything I say is wise, reflexively?

"fully fledged UNIX" - no, it's not. If the idea of what UNIX even meant was ever successfully codified, OSX wouldn't come anywhere close.

Uh, what? Windows NT came out in 1994. Windows 3.0 (first usable Windows) came out in 1990, 3.1 came out in 1992. Any "kid" that was using windows in 1990 to play games, wasn't making business decisions by 1994. Further, absolutely every single major game in that era still used DOS. One had to set up a boot disk that did blah whatever with extended memory and driver loading, and then viola - "Masters of Magic," "Doom," Dungeon Keeper," "X-COM" etc - all the super cool games of back then - all ran in DOS, not Windows. Your theory is fail.

funny, those problems all existed prior to, and during, the skyrocketing usage of Linux. Maybe, for fark's sake, it isn't meant to be the same experience as Windows.

so your suggestion is for hundreds of people to volunteer substantial amounts of time, to make it easier for commercial entities to make money? Funny how people in IT are "libertarians" until it comes to such subjects... No. Linux was better off without systemd, where a solution with no problem farked up everything permanently. It's better off making the substantial changes which would be necessary for fast gaming too. For fark's sake, while it lost the core principle of simplicity, it is still a bloody unix...get a mac or a windows box (or a console...) if you want to game.