Either you got bad moderators that day or I got good moderators today, or maybe the opinion of the majority is changing.

Maybe because you can't break rocks with harsh words?

Tell that to this guy.

How would that work? Unlike Windows 7, Windows 8 automatically performs activation over the Internet during setup.

You seem to think that anyone who thinks the complaints are overblown are part of some systemd fanclub.

Im not a full-time linux admin, Im just an observer noting that Red Hat and Debian retain their customer base despite the complaints that systemd is ruining the world, and we havent heard widespread reports of systemd induced system failures. That kind of makes me think that the complaints are vastly overstated and that the drama is unnecessary.

If things really are that bad with systemd, I would have expected to see a new, highly popular distro pop up in the last several months (or in the next few months) that blows Red Hat and Debian away-- or perhaps to see CentOS split off and do their own thing. We arent seeing that, which again makes me question the "sky is falling" claims.

It's the very first thing I thought when I read the first-released list of fracking chemicals, years back.

The list of chemicals they have announced supports it.

If every major garage company started making garages a certain way, and a handful of people on some garage enthusiast forums started complaining that they were doing it completely wrong and the engineering priciniples sucked, I might be a little skeptical. Because, you know, if that were true, you'd have a few outcomes:

  1) there would be widespread reports of the failures of said garage engineering principles
  2) those companies would start losing customers en masse
  3) a new competitor eschewing those changes would pop up and become incredibly popular as they gave people what they wanted.

Im not seeing that happen with systemd, which leads me to believe that either the complaints are niche, or overstated, or irrelevant, and that in any case Red Hat and Debian arent "doing it wrong" as badly as everyone on slashdot says they are.

This chemical is generally considered safe. Im not sure if you're posting in the correct topic, though its possible you fell for the media hysterics baiting.

Its a food additive, too, so that may actually not be too bad.

Got to love how many people took the "media hysterics" bait, though.

That is an interesting and completely baseless theory, but Im not sure what anyone is supposed to do with it. If you have evidence to support it I imagine it would make for a pretty juicy story, though.

Was that not a link when you read it? Because how this hypertext thing works is that you click the link for more information.

Before railing on safety as it relates to 2-butoxyethanol, you may want to look it up on wikipedia. Aside from being used just about everywhere as a surfectant, it is approved by the FDA as a food additive; Im pretty sure that means its not a safety hazard.

You didnt even read what he posted. The thing that means its not toxic is that the FDA has approved it as direct and indirect food additives. Read the 2nd to last sentence of his quote.

Maybe that 2nd to last sentence will help:

It is also approved by the U.S. FDA to be used as direct and indirect food additives

That is a lot of shit. We've actually discovered that your activities change your DNA, and that this can be handed down to your offspring. Keep up.

It is severely disappointing when the discussion around something turns out to be highly misleading based on a simple wikipedia search:

2-Butoxyethanol has a low acute toxicity, with LD50 of 2.5 g/kg in rats.[3] Laboratory tests by the U. S. National Toxicology Program have shown that only sustained exposure to high concentrations (100-500 ppm) of 2-butoxyethanol can cause adrenal tumors in animals.