If this is seriously what you want to know, here is the answer:
They work without the appropriate licence, their cars are not checked for fitness, and their insurance doesn't cover it, when they run you against a wall. isn't that quite enough?

But that's not what I'm interested in.
Like the other, rather idiot suggestion to change the background decoration. We are not in W95 last millennium.
I have set up a panelless desktop that I use at home and at work. It is based on the netbook-plasma 'Search and Launch' activity. I couldn't care less about background image, what I want is my panelless all edge-event based desktop. What's the point then of telling me about the beauties of XFCE, Unity, or what not.
To me panels are cluttered, overloaded one-dimensional items (at least, usually they are in a single line with items popping up in the orthogonal direction). Whereas I like a clean desktop with a 2-dimensional arrangement of launchers, groups and whatnot. Popping up for me is - no, not a hidden panel - a 2-dimensional display of reduced applications. Yep, a tad like OSX, and still no panel.

Should anyone be able to point out a desktop that allows this, I'd be happy to know. Or even better: KDE just keeping what it has, and migrate it to Plasma 5 which has clear technical advantages.

... and I am a KDE-person. Wow, holy sh**. I fled from Gnome to KDE some years ago, happy so far, and now it seems I have to look again; for a place to escape. A place that I can configure freely, and one that does not look like a Metro-Spin-Off. Yep, the screenshot on the ostatic-blog mentioned in the summary looks exactly - no, not the same, but like a similar mental breakdown of the people behind the design.
On KDE 'Activities' were fine, though abandonware before ever fully developed https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug..... For ages, I have been sitting on my personal configuration of the 'plasma-netbook'. With a 1920x1200 24" monitor. Meaning, *a lot* of reconfiguration. I tried Plasma 5, and - gone it was! Okay, I could stay on Plasma 4 for some more time, though the writing seems to be on the wall. Why do some people tend to think that the market leader is the market leader for their cr** desktop designs? I can promise you one thing, 'Year of Linux on the desktop' or not - none of my Windows users has ever told me how beautiful the desktop was. On the contrary, they usually preferred mine aesthetically, and theirs for the simplicity of functions.
 

Come on, AC or not, your suggestion is not a brainer. What's the point of paying a FA for sitting there and at least yelling "God, he's coming after me, he pulls a gun! He's determined ...." - "Yes, I will" - "Bang" for posterity, or the curious /.-reader?

To be a completeness nazi: Silk Air. Into the Indonesian mountains.

With this, and the rest of your post, and with all respect: Do you know what you are actually talking about; or are your arguments based on a philosophical base of hearsay?

$ ls -l /lib/systemd/system | wc -l
52
makes it already some fifty files.

And how does one file look like?
$ cat sudo.service
[Unit]
Description=Provide limited super user privileges to specific users
[Service]
Type=oneshot
# \073 is ';' which needs to be part of the find parameters
ExecStart=/usr/bin/find /var/lib/sudo -exec /usr/bin/touch -d @0 '{}' \073
[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

Oh wow! What a beauty, totally easy to understand and maintain!

How much worse is the old style:
$ cat sudo
#! /bin/sh
. /lib/lsb/init-functions
N=/etc/init.d/sudo
set -e
case "$1" in
    start)
                # make sure privileges don't persist across reboots
                if [ -d /var/lib/sudo ]
                then
                                find /var/lib/sudo -exec touch -d @0 '{}' \;
                fi ;;
    stop|reload|restart|force-reload|status) ;;
    *)
                echo "Usage: $N {start|stop|restart|force-reload|status}" >&2
                exit 1 ;;
esac
exit 0

I think I am a convert!

Your comment is totally valid, though unexpected at an ID of close to 3 million.
Exactly true. That Poettering has not been bashed left and right, alas, has to make with our current times. In 2015, a number of companies are not satisfied with their own turf, and rather 'attract' customers from the other side of the wall. And those quite often have no good command of *nix, some not at all. But they like ubiquitous unreadable binary files and blobs, registries, and cherish the idea that a downtime is best rectified by filing a service request with the manufacturer, consulting some *-SuperSite, fiddling with GUI-elements (almost) exclusively, etc.
Sometimes I feel that the beauty of such a sysadmin is, that (s)he can confidently and honestly state: "You can't resolve many problems yourself, anyway". True. But, alas, not on *nix. With systemd, however, this great 'excuse' has made its entrance. Finally, we (they) have a great excuse for inactivity at system failure: "systemd got problem".

Oh my, we are talking servers here; respectively answering the question of the OP. And then 'resume from suspend' is only one thing, and that's OT.

Your low ID proves that you mean what you stated, I guess. My ID is much higher, though I think I've been in the business for a similar amount of time. And I can fully second what you wrote. Both passages.
But since I have no mod points, I can only second you here in writing. Especially I love the comparison to the Windows registry. Though systemd is not much different from that dreaded registry, alas.

When I was sysadmin, be it on Windows, *BSD or another *nix, my (personal) nightmare would be my incapacity of troubleshooting a problem by myself, and instead filing a support request. Therefore, Windows was the first platform I left. Because, if I can't locate and rectify the trouble due to my lack of knowledge, I hate myself; though I can live with it. However, if I can't locate and rectify the trouble by design of the manufacturer, I could throw myself into the dustbin. Because all my efforts to improve, study, experiment would be in vain by definition of the software providers. Be they in RedMond or RedHat.

This is 100% insightful. I have no mod points.
Systemd is great for me on the desktop; and yet not necessary. Systemd is a no-no on the reliable server (it isn't even 100% reliable on my desktops). I suffered from the Solaris SMF a decade ago.
As sysadmin, if my init scripts don't run, I could troubleshoot one by one (if ever I wanted, though I rarely had to), SMF didn't give me that privilege. And systemd wouldn't neither.

I wonder if I was to mod you up for insightful or funny.
But that aside, I wished it was as easy as that. Really. Theo is not going to like that, neither.
For the home router, at least, you are right with the lousy SMP support. I wished there was an OpenBSD equivalent for m0n0wall / pfsense. Installing OpenBSD is much too much for a small home router, e.g. on a Soekris box.

What misrepresentation?
I as ex-sysadmin kind of love systemd on my desktop; for the simplicity. From own experience I know that at times my desktops prop up some 'failed to start services - do you want to report - ...'-messages that are non-reproducible, occur rarely, and despite of digging into them never revealed actual problems. On the desktop they are nothing but an emotional disappointment about the state of FOSS.
One thing, however, is sure: I wouldn't for my life have trusted my servers to such a monolithic all-invading conglomerate of evolving software. If I were still sysadmin, and were sitting on Linux, I'd avoid systemd like the devil.

For your ID (low) you seem to be very modern; 4 GB is 'very small'? ;-)

To me, personally, I used floppyfw for years. Okay, that's Linux-based, though on 1.44 MB. Then I went over to BSD-based m0n0wall, the precursor of pfsense, and run it from a - much too large - 256 MB Flash.
While pfsense is out for me, due to it huge (okay, in my notation) demand on RAM. My Soekris 4801 has a mere 128 MB of it, which is more than enough for m0n0wall, though below the requirements of pfsense.

Since I can fully recommend m0n0wall, and used it with almost no intervention and no trouble at all (except of the initial setup which is somewhat ambiguous), I am confident that pfsense is doing fine as well.

I was hoping for the complete Lena. When the image popped up, in the 1970s, sure that the larger parts of the image were cut off for indecency.
But in 2014, I think this is no topic any longer.
A new coding algorithm could as well have come with a new perspective on morals.
And given us something NSFW, to look at in the workplace!

Amazing.
An AC modded down for a crudely shortened summary, to a minus 1. Actually, no.
And the next poster at this moment in time, another AC, says 'nope'.
Has the mod (wo)man posted as AC to strengthen her statement?

While AC's comment wasn't really up to the article, the paper by Kadanoff does what parent is saying; and it is what re-normalization is about.
http://www.studiolo.org/Mona/M... and http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/availa...
are prior art. The former if you're more in arts, the second if you're more in physics/maths.
I don't want to say that there is not much in the paper, it is not my field. Common sense makes me wonder how much effort is necessary in the competitive academic world of our time to self-promote one's work on /.; or to get someone's friends to promote an otherwise not earth-shattering approach into the headlines.