Man, I love your posts because of how just shy of completely unhinged they are.

, from home users all the way to admins of large Linux server farms have said loud and clear SYSTEMD IS NOT WANTED and too damned buggy and brittle

When someone can provide concrete examples of this, rather than anecdotes and argument from emotion, I'll be more willing to listen. Until then, it seems mostly knee-jerk reaction and blaming everything on the target of one's reactionary hatred than anything concrete. But then that's pretty much par for the course with systemd.

And your links are either just shy of image macros or also from sites of people whose arguements are so terrible they read:

Poettering is like Hitler or Putin.

As quoted from your 4th link, very first sentence. So unbelievably, stupidly hyperbolic they can't be taken seriously.

I don't know how many server devs I've talked to that are leaving Linux over mission critical bugs in systemd

That's because you could very well be making shit up.

one long time Linux admin I talked to was royally pissed as he had a huge Linux farm and the order just came down from the top to switch it all to Server 2K12 because of systemd

And this screams at me "I'm hairyfeet, and I'm making shit up because I can't come up with a factual, data-backed argument!"

But it's a typical hairyfeet rant. Light on reality, heavy on emotion.

We've reached the limits of the flash technology which drives both the SATA and PCIe versions of the storage device

Individual chips have an upper cap on speed, but that's why every SSD on the market accesses numerous devices in parallel. All you need to do to make an SSD go faster is add more NAND devices in parallel and a slightly faster controller to support them.

Flash is not all that fast and it quickly becomes the limiting factor on how fast you can read data out of it.

Maybe if you have no idea what you're talking about.

unlike most of the business ppl, such as Romney, Fiorina, McNerney, Welsh, Koch bros, etc, they focus on nothing but making money and have no interest in the future of America or Mankind

None of the people you quoted appear to give a damn about the future of America or Mankind, either. They simply chose a different route to more money and power for themselves - one that hurts far, far more.

That is not capitalism, but corporatism (which is the politically correct modern name for fascism).

No, "corporatism" was Mussolini's preferred phrase, over that of "fascism." It is not "fascism" by any stretch of the imagination for a company to get a loan from the government.

Since there was another option, although less palatable to Musk, he should not have received a federal bailout.

And subjected himself to the whims of the corporations that gave him money? I'm sure they totally wouldn't interfere with the way the company operated, they'd never start demanding ridiculous growth at the cost of product quality and customer service, not at all.

unlike the GM bailout, this bailout was to somebody in the 1% group to enable him to make luxury automobiles for others in the 1%.

At worst there is no difference. At best, it prevented an actually innovative company from sinking and its technology dispersing into the market, never to be heard from again while GM et. al. continued doing what they were doing.

borders/barriers are less and less effective lately against a flood of competition from people who are cheaper and better (or hungrier).

Only because those borders are as porous as can be for corporations and what they desire, for you and me they are quite well sealed. And the notion that they're "better" is illusory. Having worked for several years with one outsourcing firm, I know the crap they churn out and their utter inability to move fast enough to get the job done. If you want it done right, or at all, do it inside.

Americans I believe will have to come to grips with the possibility of a stagnant or even decreasing standard of living as the rest of the world takes what was once our position.

You mean as the oligarchs in this world take more and more of the profits and shit on everyone below them. Well, yes, we'll just come to grips with the fact that we're all being robbed by a small number of monied elite. I suspect it won't end well for them.

No, Im asking why there is a double standard whereby you can "ethically" refuse to patronize a business whose beliefs you disagree with, but they cannot ethically refuse to service you.

It's not a double standard. A business exists by virtue of the rules imposed by society, and said license comes with conditions.

The person does not come with any such rules.

You're insisting that you have the right to force other people to violate their beliefs to fit your whims.

Presumably we've made it clear that there are conditions one must agree to in exchange for setting up a business in this country. One is that you don't discriminate against people for certain specific reasons, particularly when those reasons cover large swaths of people. We fought this battle ~50 years ago, with the same bullshit arguments ("God says it's a sin!") and it's still no more right or sane than it was back then.

He didn't say that either.

What he did do was lash out at the people pushing this law for being arbitrary, hypocritical, superstitious, bigoted, and (most importantly) wrong. It's a frequent problem with people whose religion has privilege and a marked persecution complex.

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally? I'd rather not.

"Klansman" is not a protected class. Of course, would you know if he came in while not dressed so as to call himself out so obviously? No!

And if you knew who he was, you could refuse to sell to him individually.

You are being silly, would might change a place would be a boycott organized against a business, dropping sales even ten percent would probably wake them up.

Or whole towns could adopt similarly hateful attitudes and make it de-facto. Why the fuck are we wandering back down this path? Oh right, because Christian Love^WHate.

in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.

What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone. Businesses are already prohibited from acting in an arbitrarily discriminatory manner towards people. They're calling it the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to feed a bullshit persecution complex, while enshrining their hateful nonsense into law. If you can refuse business to gays because your religion says so, then you can refuse business to anyone, and that's bullshit.

Well, religion is bullshit, by and large, which is why laws like this are terrible. You have the First Amendment, you don't need to have your superstition put on a privileged pedestal.

They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

They already have that freedom. What businesses don't have the freedom to do is to treat people differently on an arbitrary basis, and the government of Indiana is trying to change it so people can, via companies, treat others like shit on the basis of their personal superstitions, which is unjustifiable and destructive.

The next gambit in secure boot is to disallow the user putting in their own signing keys.

This is that gambit. If you cannot turn secure boot off, you cannot alter the keys.

if microsoft surface could run linux

The (x86) Surface is a standard PC, you can install and run Linux on it.

Of course, that requires giving money to Microsoft and not everyone wants their keyboard or solely the hardware on offer in the Surface.

It's a surface mount, single-package SSD.

I've just about started fist-fights with that observations.

Probably because it's profoundly and willfully ignorant, along with being unnecessarily antagonistic.

You should probably try not being an asshole.

With GNOME and Firefox, it was said early on that bad UI changes were just experimental, and could be ignored. If they were bad, they'd be reverted. Well, they did turn out to be bad. They were very bad, in fact.

Sounds like someone is presenting a subjective opinion as fact.

Any critics were ridiculed and silenced.

Nonsense, the critics got louder and more irritating while failing to seriously substantiate their arguments.

Linus' leadership role is on its way out, I fear. Linux is done, too. It's suffering from the same disease that has affected GNOME, Firefox and Debian: technological correctness taking a backseat to political correctness.

I see, you're not here to present anything rational, you're here to troll.