Crypto-currencies can still be many things without "long term inherent stability", except for currency of course.
" I don't know about you, but the idea that every single person in America who has ever had an injection has been protected because we harvest the blood of a forgettable sea creature with a hidden chemical superpower makes me feel a little bit crazy. This scenario is not even sci-fi, it's postmodern technology.'"
What? I think you are assuming that we share you beliefs that this is somehow wrong or soemthing? Or are you just marvelled at scietific acomplishments? Or are you the guy with the beret from xkcd, who gets awestruck with danishes?
If every user of stock windows 8 does not notice Metro... They need to seek medical attention immediately.
I think you meant something along the lines of "Not everyone hates Metro". But to be clear and fair, its the first thing any one with eyes will notice, and as such it deserves all the criticism it gets.
Yeah, there are some great things about windows 8 that does get lost by most users due to the Fkup that is metro. But this is how it is with Microsoft, great improvements behind the scenes get overlooked because they did something else even stupider and more noticeable. Such is their gift to the software world.
Compare/contrast with OSX early in its life. Early times, it was all about the back end, which pissed off OS 9 users as the UI had regressed significantly, even though it was much more stable and better performing. Eventually with the backend good enough they switched attention to the UI and fixed a bunch of regressions. Most of the complaints went away. Microsoft changed the UI for the worse for most of its users. Now its slowly fixing it, I think. Or making it much worse, its tough to tell sometimes with them. It really seems like they don't have a masterplan for the desktop/metro interfaces and are just floating in the proverbial wind. That kind of shit should have been done before any of the code was written.
I wouldn't return your request for an interview/ more details either.
Well, maybe a canyonero
No, it is perfectly plausable in a world filled with three eyed fish and where kids never age.
Voodoo based economics.
They gave the hydrogen a tax break, hoping that at some point it would be incentivized enough to fuse for them.
They suck at managing daemons, that's what the hell is wrong with them.
Init systems have "worked" for different definitions of work. There are porblems with shell scripts, they lose track of threads easily. They're slow, easy to create circular dependancies.
Take a look at the debian init positions, and see for yourself what they think are major drawbacks of sysvinit. Absolutely *no one* on the tech commitee thinks its a good idea to stay with it. As much animosity as there is between the systemd and upstart camps, no one has listed any other solution besides upstart and systemd as a first or second choice. That should tell you something.
Haven't you been to the theme park?
There ain't no whales.
Gnome wants to allow admins to keep track of what different users are doing and enforce permissions and what not on their utilizeation of the system.
Sounds good right? They had policykit, but determined that logind did that task better. Logind ( part of systemd) just does a better job of doing that one job. It turns out that monitoring all the processes a user creates through using a desktop is a very simular task to the more general job of monitoring a daemon and all of its processes. So it makes sense to have the same tool perform very simular tasks.
So, if you don't understand what systemd does and what gnome needs, your statment makes a *lot* of sense. But when you figure out what everything does, it just looks wrong. Why re-invent the wheel for the same task? This *is* KISS. Re-inventing the wheel is not KISS, adds bloat, duplication of effort and bugs.
Systemd handles all the difficult edge cases with init systems better than anything else. It won't start things in the wrong order, deadlocks can be detected in configurations without having to boot, It will always cleanly unmount file systems, it won't lose track of forking daemons.
As an end user of a single desktop, you're unlikely to notice a difference between upstart and systemd aside for the differences in syntax when managing daemons. The edge cases that upstart sucks at are relatively rare occurrences that I've been fortunate to avoid.
As a developer, I love the idea of systemd. I want to rewrite my ( in house, proprietary ) daemons to require it.
Basically, because upstart doesn't do the job of an init system well. SystemD does.
SystemD does also do a number of other things well. Its not monolithic in the sense that there is a single binary doing everything. Not all of the apis that connects the pieces together are guaranteed to stay stable, but they have made some promises of api stability when it makes sense.
So many things can be made better by having a really good Pid 1. And some things only make sense integrated into Pid 1.
Yeah, I had mod points yesterday. Not using Beta.
Oh, I don't know, probably the people complaining about the people complaining about beta are Dice Employees. Wouldn't suprise me.