From the article "Rather than draw from a licensed collection of images, Defendant gathers these images by crawling as much of the Internet as it can, copying and indexing every image it finds, without regard to the copyright status of the images and without permission from copyright owners like Plaintiff,"

I wonder why Google wasn't charged, too? Isn't that how their image search works?

But you use a binary, even now to view the text files. Whether you us cat or less or vi or some other editor/viewer, human beings cannot read text files from a log without having to use a binary. That is because what we call text files are merely representational of a text file. Like a binary, though, they are just zeros and ones until some program interprets them for us.

Except the separate systemd modules are all seperately functioning executables. That's why if you want to run gnome-shell, you can simply include the logind daemon from systemd along with whatever init system you want to use. Even if you choose to compile all of systemd, it only uses the daemons you turn on. How is that not modular?

That is simply false.

Systemd has a configure system similar to the kernel. Like the kernel, where some distros use a "full" kernel and others use a stripped down version, it is up to the distro to decide what fits its need. The same is true with systemd. Take distros running late versions of gnome-shell, which requires the logind module of systemd, all they are including is logind, not all of systemd. Even Ubuntu is using logind with upstart and also sys init scripts.

Nobody is forcing a distro to adopt systemd. If the distro developers do and it impacts you, the complaint should be with the distro developers, not systemd. Maybe the developers have good reason for making the change. Most of them are community based, so it is doubtful that they are doing it just because Redhat is doing it (although Centos and Scientific would most likely change to maintain compatibility).

Even if your distro of choice does change, it shouldn't force you to stop running your machines the way you want too. You can freely mix systemd, upstart and init scripts, using whatever pieces you want for whatever need you have. That applies whether your system is a desktop, server, embedded or whatever.

It seems most of your problems are just repeated myths about systemd. For instance http://0pointer.de/blog/projec... debunks all of them and there are numerous other sites that do likewise. While I am not a big fan of systemd, I do understand what they are trying to do and it isn't the end of the world like people want to make it out to be.

The BSD "emulation" is a translation layer from linux kernel calls built into various parts of systemd to BSD kernel calls. If you are already running on a linux kernel, what would be the point of a translation layer. It would be like running Wine under Windows.

It seems that the BSD developers are looking at just using the pieces that they think their incarnation of BSD needs. There is nothing to stop a linux distro from doing the same thing. Many already do by adding logind for Gnome while still using upstart or the old init system.

Maybe those three services are included because they were replicating the functionality that both upstart and other init methods already provided. Dealing with time zones, system clocks and login/shutdown wasn't something that only became available with systemd. If these three daemons are problematic, then it goes back much further than systemd.

Think outside the box. Maybe your linux system is embeded in the flight systems of an airliner or vehicle that really does need the capability of changing timezones. Maybe your linux system needs to communicate with other devices that don't deal with system clocks the same way or don't use UTC. And, as for logging out or shutdown, maybe you don't need it, but surely, it is foreseeable that some applications might benefit from it instead of having to each role their own solution.

Look at it this way, some use cases don't need cron, either, but it doesn't mean it isn't useful for those use cases that really do need it.

Chances are that is false. What is much more likely is that one of the systemd modules, say logind might be required, but not all of systemd. Isn't that how software development is supposed to be -- use an existing library that provides the required functionality instead of everybody building their own version?

That's fine, because systemd is not the "windows" way and anybody claiming it is is just blowing smoke. While I prefer upstart to systemd, the reality is systemd is a bunch of individual modules (you know the linux way of one program for one task) that work together. However, when compiling it, you just set switches for the pieces you want to use. You don't have to use all of the modules and those that you do use will coexist with upstart and other init scripts.

There is a lot of fud about systemd, and like I said, it isn't my preference, but it isn't the end of the world that many people want you to believe.

There is no need on linux to a translation to system calls. Being built on the linux kernel it just makes the system calls it needs. As for Gnome requiring systemd, it doesn't. It uses logind which is just one part of it. People keep implying that systemd is this huge monolithic init system. It isn't. It is made up of numerous individual daemons that you are free to include or not. For instance, you can use all of your current init scripts or upstart and just include logind if you want to use gnome-shell.

Just like distro's compile the kernel with what features they want to include or not, the same is true with systemd.

There is no need to emulate. Any distro can implement what portions of systemd to include or to exclude by simply clicking on the portions they want and off the portions they don't want. Systemd isn't an all or nothing choice. The distros can use as much or as little of it as they please.

Does Bill Gates have any credentials to show he is an expert in the field of teaching history?

Why fault the US liberals? The whole US economy is based on consumerism. Liberal and conservative both are guilty of over-consumption.