The oil companies screamed like bloody murder when they talked about shaving those 4 billion in subsidies while they were raking in record profits.

But all the other groups receive equally large subsidies. If coal power cost what it's actual costs were it would be the most expensive power in the US. (I'm including the environmental and medical costs) But even if you don't include the environmental costs coal receives massive tax credits and subsidies.

Batteries are dropping in cost and increasing in capacity at about 20% per year right now. The Tesla gigafactory is expected to bring retail prices for a 85kwh battery pack to about $6000 where it's currently about $12k. For most residential homes an 85kwh battery pack is enough storage to provide power completely for more than 2weeks at full peak usage. With a gas heated home, the winter use of said battery pack would exceed a month without a single day of sunshine. Keep in mind the only time panels don't generate electricity is during the night and when the panels are covered. Even during a major storm, without snow, panels will continue to generate power during the day, just at reduced output. During the winter as long as the panels aren't covered in snow they will continue to generate power, and if tipped up to match the angle of the sun would generate better than 80% of the peak summer power.

Solar is a game changer and the retail price drops of panels will remake power generation, it's simply a matter of time at this point.

You are so very wrong.

Solar IS cost competitive. And with in a very short period, if current manufacturing price drops continue, it will be the cheapest source of power. But sure, ignore the real numbers the real reality of the situation if you wish. These numbers have been the talk of wall street for more than 2 years. Solar companies are turning down investment right now because there is too much being offered. But feel free to continue to display your ignorance. Even a fool could verify the real numbers with Google.

The only problem is the fee is rarely what you want. The only way for the fee to be fair is for the costs of grid maintenance to be separated from power purchase completely. In fact the only fair thing would be to fragment the company into a single company running the grid with only grid expenses then to split those costs evenly across all subscribers, including business.

What the power companies want is to charge a fee without justification or even providing financials to justify it. The most recent tactic they've come up with is to use subscriber revenue to install solar panels they would own. A blatant market distortion. They've even tried to make it illegal to install solar panels by mandating that only the power company can own them.

The single most important part of this is that the power companies will not play fair. Everything they request should only be evaluated with ample evidence and only allowed with valid evidence and justification for the charge.

So we've got confirmation that a VP of Uber is a sociopath with no moral compass and we're surprised? Particularly with all the bad behavior we've heard about Uber before?

You may have missed the main point.

One fueling station 400 miles from the dealership and the car only has a range of 300 miles. Do the math.

That is why certain groups like fuel cells so much more than electric cars. You can still sell the nice hydrocarbon fuel stacks to get the hydrogen. And even though you generate carbon dioxide from reforming natural gas to hydrogen it is also significantly less efficient than just burning the gas directly. In fact a CNG car would probably use less gas per mile than these fuel cell cars will ultimately end up using.

It's also a way to ensure that GMO seeds can't spread beyond their intended planting and coincidentally would resolve a major issue with GMO approval in Europe.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Binary is encryption? Wow, won't the NSA be happy to know that.

So develop an alternative to udev support and be happy in your contribution to linux. Oh wait, you expect other people to do this for you.

So your solution to bugs is to blow your foot off and delete the package? Are you serious? In the real software world we fix bugs, not declare the software worthless and delete it. It should be noted that the "bug" you've declared as catastrophic enough to warrant deleting the package could in fact be a debian bug and not a systemd bug. Ever considered that?

And that's the problem with this entire issue. You aren't interested in fixing bugs, you want to dictate to the rest of the community that we can't use the software if we want to.

This wouldn't be a systemd thread without a RedHat conspiracy. You need to go back on your meds, RedHat has done more for free software than anyone on the planet.

You are missing the OP's point, anything systemd does is wrong. It doesn't matter if it does the right thing or follows an RFC, it just means those things are wrong. He expects that if the right thing is what systemd does then the wrong thing should be done, in other words the system should boot and corrupt all the disks. Because clearly that's a better solution than systemd being right.

It could easily be avoided by the anti-systemd crowd developing and supporting alternative packages that support the required functionality. Gnome is only dependent on cgroups, not systemd. Unfortunately consolekit the only software outside systemd to support cgroups died in 2012 (the upstream died completely in that there were no active developers). To break the Gnone-systemd dependency the only thing needed is software that offers cgroup functionality, yet for two years no one stepped up.

The only Unix like system that uses SysV init is openBSD. Every other unix like system has their own init which offers similar functionality to systemd and is tied to features in their kernels that make use on other kernels impossible without massive feature porting at the kernel level. This is the most specious argument you could make.