Does this mean that RF cable television systems will be able to expand their bandwidth?

Did you ignore the first paragraph? I mentioned many positive attributes about systemd. There are capabilities there that would allow for much greater capability than before, such as if we wanted to start a program on of many system events, such as a filesystem event.

There are features in systemd that conceptually make sense, such as being able to tie the starting of a program to a system event, such as the insertion of a USB device or a file event, or any other system event, including the starting of another program. The concept and the implementation are two things, the concept can be good but the implementation may not be. It may also be that while the included concepts are a good base, they would benefit from additional refinement. The implementation in systemd may need some improvement, some more features and customizability ought to be added, but the general concepts are sound.

My view on systemd is that for most users it is fine and suitable. People who don't want it can configure systemd to start up a traditional BSD type script from which they can start their daemons, at which point that the presence of systemd would be imperceptible. Given that its high powered system administrators who want a traditional init model are knowledgeable enough to take an off the shelf distro with systemd and modify the system to their own liking, they really dont have any excuse as to why they cannot configure systemd to start their own init script and use that to start their daemons rather than directly from systemd.

Its probably even possible for these sysadmins to replace the /bin/init program with their own init program, whatever they want that to be. If they don't like systemd, being such experts, why don't they just configure their own systems not to use it?

So this whole uproar about systemd is NOT about whats best for or what common users want, what its really about is a few sysadmins forcing their own way on everyone else, and actually about making Linux difficult to use for common users. This elite group regularly opposes anything that would make Linux more useable for common people. Its as if they actually want to make sure that open source software never really becomes something that is common and ubiqitious by making the learning curve for Linux so steep that it keeps people on Windows. Many of these sysadmins actually do not want common users to use Linux or for Linux to be a desktop OS, they consider to be Linux an elite club and that Linux should be almost impossible to use without a degree in computer science, because it gives them a feeling of elitism to be able to use an OS that is almost impossible to use.

The OS X kernel code is taken from FreeBSD and Mach, It is a hybrid of both kernels. So part of OS X does come from FreeBSD.

From what I understand of systemd is that you can still set it to spawn your own init system, whether they be shell scripts or a more tradtional init program and then configure that to run your programs. All you need to do is disable the services from starting from systemd and then configure systemd to start your own init script to start your stuff. Problem solved.

It is not a troll. The term "troll" is an abused and meaningless term and without really any identifiable meaning anymore except one that is entirely subjective. You assume that if someone posts something that you disagree with that automatically it means that they are just trying to make a strike at you, when in fact its most likely that its an honestly held position. Maybe the initial meaning of the term troll was a message posted with opinions that are not honestly held by the poster, the problem is you HAVE NO IDEA and cannot tell intuitively if a poster honestly believes in what they post or not, which means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to tell if a message is a troll or not. That is why the troll identifier is meaningless and without any value whatsoever and is just a tool to be abused by those who want to silence opinions and views other than their own. Its a censorship tool in other words used by the weak, shallow minded and intellectually bankrupt who would rather censor others rather than put up a thoughtful and civil rebuttal. Thats why the troll label should be abolished.

What you want is a system that can be configured how you want it, not OSs that are hardwired to work one way or another that cannot be changed. There is no reason why Unix should be good at one thing and Windows good at another if the user can configure it to work the way they want and run just the services they need, but where the service they need is available if they need it. we need to get away from this "can't have vs. can have and must run" mentality. How about "can have and run only if you want".

To do network transparency you do want a vector based protocol like the X protocol and the GLX protocol, not the bit scraping and bitmap based ones, especially on a slow link. VNC has its uses but its not the be all and end all, there is need for a vector protocol.

I'm really waiting for an x86 phone that can be bought in the USA. These have been available for years in India (!!!!), its really appalling that you cannot yet buy one in the US of all places.

In LPD you would configure the printcap to run ghostscript (basically your printer drivers) to convert the postscript to the native printer language. The LPD did allow non-postscript printers to be used this way. It didnt work all that badly.

thank you for the very informative and iluminating reply.

Okay, I am mathematically incompetent. That does not make me a troll. If you think that I am mathematically incompetent, then please explain what is wrong with what I am saying. But to try to label me a troll, doesnt do anyone any good. It does not help your readers understand why i am wrong, which might be instructive for some readers here. Being wrong does not make one a troll, i was not wrong intentionally.

Remember that an energy technology needs to be sustainable over millions of years. When they first started to use oil, they didnt think that far ahead, just assuming that the oil supply would be vast and it wouldnt be a problem for a long time. The problem with oil is just right around the corner. In finding a solution to energy problems, we do not want to replace one problem with another.

On this whole "troll" thing, this "troll" label is being abused, to just suppress anyone who disagree with you, and that is wrong. When someone expresses a view that they honestly believe, its not a troll, even if they are wrong. I have an honest concern over fusion here, you may think its wrong which is fine, please explain why its wrong, but it is not a troll.

When someone expresses a view that you think is wrong, reply to it and explain why you think its wrong. Your readers will benefit from your illuminating insight in the matter, but don't suppress people because you disagree with them or you think that what they are saying is stupid or ignorant. When someone says something you think is ignorant or wrong, don't assume that they are trying to irritate you, in most cases they have an honest concern, if you disagree, then use the reply feature.

I am not trying to irritate anyone, just express something that was an honest concern. If i am wrong, fine, reply and explain why i am wrong.

People, its not a troll. Read the argument carefully. Its a real concern. If you disagree with the argument on technical grounds, feel free to reply. Otherwise, don't try to ridicule people for simply expressing their opinions. Reply with a rebuttal on technical argumentation, but don attack people for making the argument, but just marking up messages as Troll is childish because you disagree. What is your problem anyway. Are you that intellectually vacant that you do not reply and instead try to silence people you disagree with?

If you are going to seperate protium from H2O, what will happen over time. The ocean may seem vast, but when you have a widely deployed technology that draws it down, what are the cumulative effects over time.

At one point I thought that a reaction involving protium would be a good idea. In reality this would be a very bad idea. So much so that this, and as well, any kind of hydrogen burning energy technology, should be banned. The reason is that this would require free hydrogen. This is the paradox, hydrogen is the most common element in space, but there is almost no free hydrogen on earth. There is very little free hydrogen on earth, for a reason, the earths gravity is not strong enough to hold hydrogen down so it floats off into space. Much of the hydrogen on earth is held down and kept from floating away by being bound to oxygen in H2O. So, if you try to free hydrogen from water, what will happen is you will start destroying earths supply of water, despite the best containment system, if hydrogen is seperated form water, some hydrogen will be leaked out and will float off into space. This is not sustainable and causes permenant ecosystem damage. No water, no life.

This GMO stuff just keeps getting more creepy, freaky and frankensteinish. We need to ban this stuff before it causes a global ecological disaster and wrecks the planets environment or turns the place into a monstrous wasteland of deformed beasts and poisonous, cancer causing food. The dangers of GMOs have been well documented by others, including the cancer causing potential, such as in Jeff Smith's book.