You mean, like the Windows Registry? Nothing ever went wrong with the kitchen-sink approach to design, right?

thanks

Your claims that systemD is well engineered are a little eye-raising. We're talking about a replacement for the init system here, and you say the main feature is logind. That's not really part of what I expect Init to do.....

In any case, in a few months, I'll have time to read the systemD source code, and I will have a better idea if it's well designed or not.

What will happen is other distress will add a compatibility layer so they can handle all the kludge that has added systemD as a requirement.

The problem is systemD is bad design. The systemD guys like to say, "but look at all the features!", which is cool, but features aren't an excuse for bad design. "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly" etc etc

It has a reputation for security compared to Windows, which is not saying much. Look through a database of security vulnerabilities sometime, it's depressing.

Also worth mentioning that the kernel guys keep as much stuff out of the kernel as possible. There's even a way to segregate drivers into userland. Doing so comes with a performance hit, but if that is relatively unimportant, then it's worth keeping out. Drivers for scanners are part of the kernel, but kept in userland (as one example).

Inetd being an example of why systemD is a rather bad idea.

You *do* know IOS has a search, right? Makes it kind of difficult to fail to find an app you're actually looking for.

As for the rest, different strokes, etc. I have no objection if you choose not to use such a feature (for that matter, perhaps the OS could contain a switch to turn it off for those who are unable to manage more than a single level of folders.

As for not being useful, you're not qualified to say what's useful to me.

Would you care to explain how, or point the way to a howto?

Thanks.

Missed this, sorry:

Perhaps they have never even thought about the topic at all (no thoughts == no knowledge). Nor do they form their identity through comparison with others.

These are not the issue, though. If they hold a belief in a god or gods, they are theist. If they don't, they are atheist. You can change from one to the other, in fact many times, but at any point in time, you *are* one or the other.

That's all the theism / atheism issue addresses. Belief in a god or gods -- or not. Has nothing to do with why, how, which or one's idea of identity. It's a state of being, like being alive, or not, or being able to hear, or not.

Maybe you think so. I enjoy it.

Is there a difference between knowledge and belief

Yes. Always.

Knowledge is based, either directly or through a proxy, upon known facts that are some combination of repeatable, consensually experiential, and testable. Sound travels at a particular speed in our atmosphere. This is knowledge.

Beliefs are based upon faith, and cannot be proven, although they can be described and so passed along. Animals cross the rainbow bridge when they die. This is belief.

Either one can be mischaracterized as the other, but examining the issue at hand for the required elements of knowledge will very quickly determine just what it is you're dealing with. Likewise, conviction isn't the issue.

The thing to remember is that just because you have an idea in your head, that doesn't qualify it as knowledge.

My palm TX sees your blackberry and drops the bar several inches all at once. :)

Did they enable nested folders yet? The current single level folders are limiting and create unnecessary clutter.

For instance, it'd be nice to have one games folder, inside which might be a folder for board games, one for shooters, one for tower defense, etc.

One that would be of interest to me would be arranged around photography. One main folder, then one for editors, one for astrophoto conditions and apps, one for auroral conditions and apps, one for IR work, one for special effects, etc., one for a DB of my lenses and cameras, one with my portfolio, one with links to photography websites, etc.

Folders within folders is a very natural way to arrange things in a hierarchy; I have never understood Apple's resistance to giving its customers tools they can use to make using IOS easier. In the case of nested folders, you don't *have* to use the feature if you don't want to, anyway... but if you need it, you probably *really* need it.

So here's hoping.

I should change that.....System V is an example of something that's outgrown it's original design. Improvement is needed, but........

That's an interesting hypothesis, but.....

I don't think there's much support in the evidence for this idea.