Nice collection of propaganda-lies you have there. Not credible to anybody with some actual understanding, but apparently you got enough mindless sheep to swallow it.

Really? You presume to teach me CS 101? Pathetic.

Your analysis is shit. I gave this as an example for a larger trend, as in this is 10% of my actual statement by importance.

That explains why it is such a convoluted complex mess. I have been wondering how that happened.

The NSA being able to break into systems without being detected is obviously far more important than your petty need for being able to diagnose problems.

Seriously, I wonder why they have not eliminated the logs entirely. They seem very intent on making then unusable or having the power to hide things in the logs by attacking the log-access binary. Which is one of the primary reasons why binary logs are such a brain-dead idea: You suddenly have to trust a whole lot more things.

That is the other thing. Some physicist did an estimation of the most efficient way to do massively parallel computations, including node speed, communications peed, interconnect length, etc. Turns out the human brain is pretty much optimal in this universe, everything larger or with faster nodes or the like will be performing worse. So it is entirely possible, that human intelligence (such as it is in the average case) is really the best possible.

Exactly. There is not even any credible theory that explains how intelligence could be created. "No theory" typically means >> 100 years in the future and may well be infeasible. It is not a question of computing power or memory size, or it would have long since been solved.

Well, maybe he just realizes that it is unlikely we will get AI like that any time soon and probably never. If you follow the research in that area for a few decades, that is the conclusion you come to. AI research over-promises and under-delivers like no other field. (Apologies to the honest folks in there, but you are not those visible to the general public.)

Seriously, stop redefining my statement. You have no clue whether the threads in my example were needed or bad design. And no, it was not the OS.

Well described.

It may also turn out that when systemd-created problems begin to mount (as they are likely to do), this situation will change.

It is also a good model for numerous other things. Of course, sometimes you have to deviate. An excellent rule is that unless you have a very good reason, you must not deviate. "Faster boot" is not such a reason.

Well said. One problem here is that systemd indeed increases complexity significantly and decreases the flexibility and control of the system administrator. That can still result in a good outcome, but not with these people in control and it shows in numerous places already.

At this time, that is doubtful. Initially, yes, but remember that he does the Kernel, not the user-space and it shows. (The user-space was and is mostly GNU, not Linux.) True, he does the kernel rather well, and I have no doubt systemd would never have had any chance as a kernel-module or the like, but really, once you reach user-space, Linus becomes an advanced user who is, for example, missing large installation system administration experience.

Good to know. I have been contemplating that for a while for my headless systems. The network-stack is actually much better than what Linux uses and so is the firewall code.