I read this headline thinking that shares of a publicly traded beer brewing company somehow became sentient and used the pager "more" to view recipes.

Since not everyone specializes in utilities benchmarking:

SAIDI: System Average Interruption Duration Index (average duration of interruption measured in hours)
SAIFI: System Average Interruption Frequency Index (average number of interruptions each customer experiences per year)

From what I gather, it's not *that* bad - most apps depending on systemd do so for the cgroups support.

That's the case now but soon desktop environments will start using logind and applications may start using journald. As systemd continues to offer more tightly-coupled modules, applications will likely start relying more on these modules until the point that systemd will likely be a requirement for almost all applications and desktop environments.

As the tentacles of systemd reach out and penetrate more areas of the system, more applications will inevitably require systemd which means that a Linux installation without systemd will only be able to run a small subset of Linux apps. Even though there are alternatives currently in the works for the init portion of systemd, applications are beginning to depend on the tightly-coupled processes that systemd requires which means that the only viable replacement for the entirety of systemd is another implementation of tightly-coupled procs which defeats the purpose of writing an alternative in the first place.

Perhaps they are obvious to a System Administrator but to someone who is not an admin, everything in SMART probably looks like an error. In addition to that, the article describes common errors that sound indicative of a drive failure but are actually relatively benign. So there is definitely value in this information.

As someone who is suspicious of a couple of hard drives, this data will help me to determine just how concerned I should be. I don't know what Backblaze gets out of making this information public (except publicity), but it is refreshing to a company release information such as this rather than guard it as a trade secret or sell it.

Please speak for yourself. We developers are often horrible at recognizing what users want, but we are often excellent at recognizing poorly engineered software and systemd reeks of poor engineering. I'm all for tighter integration of components in the operating system so long as they make sense, but systemd tightly couples all kinds of components that should be optional and, in general, pisses all over basic engineering principles such as KISS. I started out very neutral in the systemd debate, but the more I learn about how it is implemented, the more I understand why there are so many people who vehemently oppose it.

The real use of this software is so that companies can monitor the likelihood of a departure of their critical employees as they slowly cut benefits and stagnate wages across the board.

FFS, we've been over this a thousand times. No one is suggesting that Net Neutrality does away with ISPs performing QoS. Net Neutrality just means that ISPs can't prioritize traffic for their services of video/VOIP/etc over competing video/VOIP/etc. It's one of the few problems that has a relatively easy solution and the only reason we haven't implemented it is because there are enough special interest groups with enough power and money to make sure that they're not forced to play fairly with their customers' traffic.

Just to expand on your knowledge, all DDL commands autocommit.

They're just making sure that there will be enough memory free on people's machines for when they merge systemd.

Blu Eye monitors frequencies used by the encrypted TETRA encrypted communications networks used by government agencies in Europe

Yeah, but is it encrypted?

Or maybe he just has a 2G phone plan.

I mean, kernel modules don't just magically appear and install themselves

At least not until the next version of systemd is released.

I have heard people make these claims, but I was not at a maturity level to determine whether or not they were exaggerated at the time Apple released their first PCs. I do know that the GUI was largely invented by Xerox PARC but they failed to capitalize on it while Apple recognized the opportunity and seized it. However, while Apple may have had decent success with the PC in its time, I think Windows 95 was the first OS that really brought the modern GUI-driven PC into the vast majority of homes. And I say that as an vehement critic of Microsoft.