Really?

I found the systemd documentation installed on my machines tgst have systemd to be very comprehensive.

But it seems the anti-systemd crowd don't know how to find or read man pages, so I'll provide a link to one they can read: here .

You obviously aren't aware of inetd or xinetd, although you probably have them running, started by your precious sysvinit.

If you can fix it in /etc/init.d/zfs, you can just as easily copy /usr/lib/systemd/system/zfs.service to /etc/systemd/system and fix /etc/systemd/system/zfs.service

Surely you have vi or emacs or nano or pico or something available, with which to add a Requires entry (see systemd.unit(5)) to the zfs service unit?

The sleep button works perfectly here on a system running systemd and KDE. Maybe you have a problem somewhere else.

The only seemingly valid complaint I have seen is that systemctl doesn't provide the exist process. But, this is only the case for Type=simple (yes, the default type), where you probably want Type=forking or Type=oneshot.

1)Don't omit Type=, or use Type=simple, in the case of a non-simple process, you probably want Type=forking
2)Surely you're learned how to use 'systemctl status foo' or journalctl ?

You may have been better off reading systemd.service(5), but junior admins should be taught how to use strace regardless ...

I think part of the problem is that sysvinit is basically feature-less, and for a running system actually does nothing (it is initscripts that does this), and so people are used to just having the entire system run by scripts with no useful features (e.g.doing something different with stderr than leaving it to the controlling terminal, letting the current user pollute the environment and thus never have consistent starting of services etc. etc.).

If you had correctly used Type=oneshot, you wouldn't have been in the dark and would have seen this on the terminal:

# systemctl start broken_systemd
Job for broken_systemd.service failed. See 'systemctl status broken_systemd.service' and 'journalctl -xn' for details.
# systemctl status broken_systemd -l
broken_systemd.service - Broken systemd example
      Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/broken_systemd.service; disabled)
      Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Sat 2015-04-25 07:53:07 SAST; 26s ago
    Process: 7880 ExecStart=/root/broken_systemd.sh (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)
  Main PID: 7880 (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)

Apr 25 07:53:07 HOST broken_systemd.sh[7880]: Example systemd service
Apr 25 07:53:07 HOST broken_systemd.sh[7880]: Error that should not be thrown away
Apr 25 07:53:07 HOST systemd[1]: broken_systemd.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE
Apr 25 07:53:07 HOST systemd[1]: Failed to start Broken systemd example.
Apr 25 07:53:07 HOST systemd[1]: Unit broken_systemd.service entered failed state.

Just because sysvinit couldn't do anything useful with stderr from a one-short service (and leave it to the controlling terminal to do something with it) doesn't mean systemd shouldn't. Logging it, and informing the user that the job didn't start and where to see more information is much more useful.

I think the word we want to use here is grit.

Don't take this the wrong way. This is for your own good, but. . . get over yourself. You stopped being happy as soon as you stopped seeing yourself as an underdog. You are a hairless monkey that occasionally leaves shit stains on your underwear. Be happy that you can feed yourself without help and without getting most of the shit you stuff your face hole with all over your lap. Your "I am awesome but I could have been so much more awesome" lament shows the true reason you are not happy. You are clueless. The dumbest humans are so, so much smarter than the monkeys with fur. The difference between the smartest and dumbest human is just a rounding error in respect to that. "Smart" people are so unhappy because they forget how "stupid" they really are. "Stupid" people are happier because they are more realistic about their lot in life. Understand that if you accomplished anything worth noting in this very big universe, it was being a little less stupid than your genetics and environment destined you to be. Forgetting that you are an underdog is becoming a self-entitled SOB who wastes precious time lamenting about forgone endless potential. . .

You act as though he is being punished for violating the rules on airspace. Clearly he is being punished for raising too much awareness about finance reform. The powers that be want to make an example of him before this gets too out of hand. . .

A situation that forced me to sell my home seems like it would also force me to sell a Treasury bond (perhaps to raise cash so that I would not have to sell my home). However, I suppose you are making a liquidity risk argument which is valid. Hence, I was careful to say similar to a “US Treasury, held to maturity.” However, I still think you argument is an exaggeration for the following reasons:
- Surely your house increases in value by the present value of the future electricity savings. We see this with solar installations, so why not with batteries?
- Batteries may not be as liquid as a financial instruments, but they are probably one of the easier fixed assets to sell off for close to their fair value on short notice.

Yes, but these risks can be mitigated by 3rd party warranties and/or insurance. You COULD structure the investment so that it is risk free by giving up some of your return. Since risk free investments are around 0% right now, the bar is fairly low. Also, solar panels are typically covered by home insurance, so it does not seem a stretch that a residential battery bank would be fairly easy to add on to an existing insurance policy.

Of course, but insurance companies exist because they cover risks of assets without causing the investment in the underlying asset to have a negative return. The risks to a residential battery bank are similar to the risks to a home, so it seems reasonable to assume the additional insurance cost to someone who already has home owner's insurance would be minimal.

Good point. The original poster seemed to be unaware of the concept of survivorship bias. . .
This is much better than the usual financial discussion that occurs on Slashdot. Now we just need you to make an account so that you are no longer an Anon and can help Slashdot have more rational financial posts.

As someone who has been dumbfounded by this since he first went to Japan as an exchange student over 20 years ago, I have a theory why this may have happened. It is hypothesized that the color Blue was one of the last colors for people to discover/appreciate enough to assign it a name (Radiolab has a great show on this). Accordingly, "Ao" was assigned "green" first but as the concept of "Blue" started to materialize, "Midori" became the new "Green" so that "Ao" could start covering things that were "Blue." That would explain why phrased implying youth ("He is still Green", etc. . .) use the character for "Ao," as they are old phrases that would have been invented before the concept of "Blue" came along.

Of course, since the characters for these words came from China, there probably is a significant Chinese factor to this story (I remember speaking to a Chinese lady who thought that Chinese language influence had been responsible for this nuance in Japanese). Perhaps someone with more experience with Chinese can try to fill in this part.

Right. . . over the period 1999 to 2009 the return was ~ -34% (I suppose we do not need to annualize that to show that it is definitely below +7%/year). . .

Besides, the idea that investment horizon is the only relevant factor when making investment comparisons is financial homeopathy.

Stocks and corporate bonds are some of the most volatile, high risk asset classes you can invest in. Only magical thinking would make one conclude that would be anything close to investing in a project to reduce one's electricity bill over a long period of time. A closer comparison would be to purchase a US Treasury bond and hold it to maturity (go look up those returns instead).

It is your choice to be ignorant about finance. However, Slashdot appears to have an epidemic level of financial ignorance going on over here. Think carefully before posting. When a Geek hands over his hard earned cash to the banksters, nobody wins. . .

When you want to submit codepatches, always look for existing patches that are sitting there. Are the maintainers communicative and do they accept patches? Then it is worthwhile to submit something. If they aren't, it becomes quite hard to expect them to do accept your patch.
Not saying you are to blame, you aren't, but there are healthy projects with responsible maintainers and unhealthy projects.
Some people seem to be made to make something and throw it over the fence, while others are apparently good at maintainership.
Not every person and every project is the same. Take your picks and be carefull where to invest your time.

Ah, Slashdot. . . News for Nerds and the financially challenged. . . There are some very basic problems with your comparison, like:
-WHICH years does the S&P "mostly" do better than 8%? For instance, an investment lasting from 2000 ~ 2007 would have net you NEGATIVE return in terms of real dollars. . . You are comparing investments that have completely different levels of risk (Finance 101 fail).
-Again, corporate bonds? Most batteries have an extensive warranty period, so this investment could be structured as something similar to a risk free investment (~0% right now). . . .
-Large used batteries usually have a significant salvage value.

Not trying to be harsh on you, but the modding certainly shows the deficiencies of the Slashdot community when it comes to finance related discussions. . . What is the point of being a smart Geek if you throw your money away due to lack of finance basics?