Of course Europe is fascist, and the US is moving in that direction very quickly. Fascism is simply a method of implementing totalitarianism - one that involves partnerships between government and big business. When the banks decide how governments will spend their money, and governments decide how and what companies produce, that's fascism, and Europe is steeped in it.

Of course extreme right and extreme left (as described in most outlets these days) are both paths to totalitarianism. Europe has simply chosen the far-left form of totalitarianism. There are very few places in the world moving away from totalitarianism these days - and none are in Europe or North America.

It only seems complicated because both sides use the same tactics: Each has a group of followers that are convinced the [left / right] is the only ideas that help the common people, and they use those followers to promote ideas that end up, once implemented to always be bad for the common people and provide more power and money to the elites in control. It's all a game to them, and they each have one color of pawns or another.

You don't have a single right wing outlet in Europe. Even the most right leaning is way into the political left in the US. You've got so used to extreme left as central, you cannot see you're living in a fascist state.

Yes, the US, once the last, best hope for freedom and liberty, is moving further to the left where all the countries that have already lost are now positioned. Central Banks (rah rah), central control (yippee ECB), and soul-crushing austerity rules while the ECB spends 1.6 Billion Euros (that's Billion with a "B") on its luxurious building, built for kings. Of course, they are the new kings and priests all rolled into one, while the obedient zombies of Europe cheer on their own enslavement.

That's great - let's bring it to the US. It's working very well. The only thing stopping Agenda 21 from wresting control of all property from the US citizens and handing it to the elitists are those that know enough history to recognize the New World Order being promoted by HW Bush and Obama is no different from the serfdom and slavery of the old world that founding of the US tried to avoid in the New World. Old habits die hard, though, and the descendents of the old dictators want their Divine Right of Kings back, but with a new name now because they have created new gods to replace the old, and those gods demand sacrifice from the people. And glory for the New Priests.

FTA:

So it's important because it's a special little snowflake, just like the millennials have been taught to think of themselves. Yea, well, guess what? You're not special. And neither is Pluto.

No, it doesn't. I've done both (~820 Windows, ~900 Linux), and the Windows takes more administrator time. But then, the Linux servers were all Red Hat, so the "fees" really weren't any cheaper, but the vendor support was a hell of a lot better.

I think you're mixing things, here. At first you were comparing server OS's, but now it sounds like you're comparing deploying Windows desktops to deploying Linux servers. Yea, guess what? Managing a monolithic single-OS environment is easier than a mixed environment. If you're deploying Linux workstations you can do the same thing with the right tools. And don't get me started on all the issues you're going to encounter using GPOs in a complex environment. It works better these days, as long as your desktops are all "Enterprise" editions and you don't have any XP or 2003 servers sitting around (then it won't eve work at all).

Wow talk about admin resources - have you ever set up a functional WMI infrastructure in a secure network. To say it's non-trivial is an understatement. It's easier if everything is the same version, from a well-tested image, but there are all kinds of snafus that mean your connections don't always work or some functionality goes wrong. SCOM, frankly, is a house of cards.

Actually, I'm impressed with some of the functionality available using PowerShell and remoting in Server 2012 R2, especially being able to roll out a lot of headless stuff. But the learning curve for that, and getting the tools in place for what you want to do, is a major undertaking. Maybe after a few years with it I'd be able to do the same things I do with bash scripts now, but it seems a lot more verbose to me.

And also because politicians keep saying that 97% of them agree that we need a massive tax hike on energy or the world will heat up like a furnace and we're all going to burn up and die and the oceans will cover rise up and destroy all the coast lines and Florida will be underwater and there will be no more polar bears.

It's not fully compliant. It's a technical (and questionable) loophole designed to use my code in ways that I clearly intended it to never be used. That is, it's stealing. You seem to have some attitude that it's perfectly okay to violate the wishes of a copyright holder based solely on the idea that they neglected to think of a convoluted technical work-around to a licensing scheme, and their free (as in speech) code is now being used to make profits for someone else.

Spoken like a true entitled millennial "snowflake".

Lennert? Is that you?

That won't work. You aren't understanding the mechanism. I don't expose my services by IPC, you have to link to the library, which means your software must be open source. What LP is doing is writing open source programs that link to open source libraries, then providing IPC interfaces. Those interfaces also expose services in the open source libraries he links to. That's the "glue" he is referring to, and that's what bypasses the licensing restrictions. It's an anti-virus for the GPL virus.

Right. Unfortunately, systemd aims to enable vendors (read: RedHat) to rent a closed Linux distribution, and retain all control over it.

Exactly.

It's the "glue" between the applications and the kernel (at least that's the vision of LP and the systemd developers). As such, closed source developers can use that "glue" using IPC, and still gain access to all those functions in the open source libraries.

It's an open source kernel with a proprietary, monolithic, and walled-garden operating system on top. It has all the features you've described as "freaking awesome". It's not a "kernel + some packages", its a true [whatever label] operating system. If that's what you want, buy an MacBook and be done.

What's wrong with NetworkManager, anyway? The resolved module has serious DNS poisoning vulnerabilities - why do you want that? If I want secureboot, I can use Windows. Why would I want a Linux distribution that has to be built by someone with the keys to my firmware?

Run whatever you want, nobody cares. Just don't use my GPL licensed libraries in your closed source code - that violates the GPL license.

But we already have that available. It's called OSX.