No need to bomb anything anymore. The western world already lives in terror.
But then you are simply programming in C.
Nothing wrong with that, but why use a C++ compiler when a plain C compiler would spare you so much overhead?
Depending on how hard-core object-oriented you wish your program to be, plain old C might be a much better option, especially if you everything can just be command-line only and will not need a GUI.
Otherwise, and I'm almost loathe to mention these, C# and Java might be even better ways to go.
C++ is needlessly complicated.
The solution is simple: do not use Facebook.
Facebook is evil.
Two very important reasons never to use Facebook:
* Facebook blatantly states in their EULA that they will sell your private information to third parties. In fact, anything you upload becomes their (intellectual) property.
* Facebook does not let you use pseudonyms. Your privacy is your own and it should be up to you to decide whether or not you use your real name and not to some billion dollar company whose primary goal in your participation is to sell your private information to third parties.
The issue is not with systemd corrupting the binary logs, or with the filesystem corrupting the binary logs, but with the fact that they are -binary- logs. A log file should be an ordinary text file. Nothing more, nothing less.
To say nothing about the very concept of systemd being a BAD IDEA. One daemon to rule them all and in the darkness bind them? Give me a break. It used to be that Linux was a fairly faithful UNIX-like operating system. And you know what makes a good UNIX or UNIX-like operating system? The tools, specifically those that are well-written and do one thing and do it well (with reasonable exceptions). Systemd is neither well-written nor does it do one single thing very well, well maybe corrupt your log files and crash very, very spectacularly.
By the way, if you're so worried about your filesystem getting corrupted, why use ext4 at all? It contains serious design and implementation flaws, specifically concerning the journal. XFS is by far a better journalled filesystem, with none of those issues. It is simply the best choice, especially if your concerned with the integrity of your data.
No country or society can call itself truly civilized until it has abolished capital punishment completely. Capital punishment is barbaric and should have no place in a modern society.
The SCO that is currently trolling IBM is not the SCO that you remember as "such a good company". There are two SCO's:
* The Santa Cruz Operation (1979-2001). This is the SCO that you remember. They brought us Xenix (bought from M$), SCO Unix and Unixware. This SCO sold their rights to UNIX to Caldera Systems (then primarily known for Caldera/Open Linux and OpenDOS (bought from Novell, which had in turn bought it from Digital Research earlier). In those years they were mostly famous for filing an antitrust campaign against Microsoft). After selling their UNIX servers and services division to Caldera they renamed themselves as Tarantella Inc., after the product line they retained. Tarantella was subsequently bought by Sun Microsystems in 2005, which in turn was bought by Oracle in 2010.
* The SCO Group (2005-), formerly known as Caldera Systems / Caldera International. As Caldera they bought above SCO's UNIX servers and services division and subsequently renamed themselves to "The SCO Group". Like an evil David they tried to topple Goliath IBM by (falsely) claiming in court that programmers from IBM illegally copied code from SCO's OpenServer sources (supposedly their intellectual property was so secret that their allegations of verbatim copying code by IBM was "proven" by presentational slides which had the SCO code shown in Greek alphabet). Around the same time they started selling subscription based Linux licenses to large IT companies (which were led to believe that The SCO Group owned the rights to Linux). This ridiculous scheme went on for several years, until a judge decided, once and for all, that enough was enough and told them to bugger off, as in the meantime, it had become clear in a separate lawsuit that Novell was in fact the owner of the UNIX copyrights, not the SCO Group.
The driving force behind the creation and abandonment of execution methods is the constant search for a humane means of taking a human life.
Capital punishment is not humane. There is no humane way to take a human life. That is a contradictio in terminis.
The death penalty should be abolished worldwide as soon as possible. Aside from the fact that it is barbaric and has no place in a truly civilized society (to the extent that no nation or society can really call itself civilized, unless it has abolished the death penalty), there is always a chance, however slim, that the person being executed is innocent of the crime he was convicted for. Someone who has been put to death cannot be brought back to life if he turns out to be innocent. A person who has been sentenced to life in prison, on the other hand, can be released and rehabilitated.
The system of plea bargaining is a perversion of justice and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
CCHR is a front for Scientology. Don't believe anything that's written on it.
Systemd is a monstrosity that should never have seen the light of day. There is no excuse for closed-mindedness, arrogance. They lead to bad design. However brilliant its creator might be, systemd is flawed by design.
Some highlights (or maybe 'lowlights'?):
* System logs are primarily kept in a binary format, which is a very, -very- bad idea. You wish to store them in a database (which is basically what happens)? Fine, but only as a secondary way to store them, not the other way around!
* Init was built to do one thing and it was built to do that thing very well: run some variant of a shell script called rc. Everything else is superfluous. It is the cardinal rule, the core philosophy UNIX (and Linux nowadays) was created upon.
* Systemd is not very transparent. That in and of itself makes it a security concern to say the least.
* Nearly everything with systemd is done through (binary) modules with XML configuration files. A bad idea. A very, -very- bad idea. The pros of using shell scripts, and maybe, maybe use some (human-readabe) external configuration scripts are many, not the least of which is the fact that they are by far, much more customizable. With a classic init setup you not only control the setup and configuration of your system, you actually control its behaviour at boot time as well. If there is something you don't like about your system's behaviour, all you have to do is modify one or more of those shell scripts.
Your notion that systemd finally puts the dynamic parts in user space does not track at all. The dynamic parts have always (also) been in user space. That is why tools such as ifconfig, route (combined in the iptools ip* commands nowadays), etc. are user space / user land tools; they do not run in kernel space. The kernel provides an API for user space tools to work with. It has done that since the very early Linux days. The rc scripts and the scripts in init.d (in a SYSV like Linux setup) or in rc.d (in a BSD-like Linux setup, not many of those around anymore) in turn then use these userland tools to setup and configure your system.
If your network interface comes up too late during boot, before something that depends on it comes up, the problem is with the boot sequence, not with init itself. It's something you can fix yourself. You don't need some black box to do that for you. Moreover, if it succeeds at all at doing it, it will do it very badly. There is no excuse for a bad system setup. That goes both for the maintainers of a software distribution (in this case Linux) and you yourself as the individual who operates that software.
One thing I do agree with you about is the serious case of bad documentation. Moroever, I think that bad, incomplete or even missing documentation is the source of many a Linux user or admin's woes. But it is something that everyone can contribute to. Linux is after all, Open Source.
Your argument is flawed.
Technical and scientific jargon is usually derived from Latin, Greek or both. That is why the word electricity is so familiar to French, German and Dutch native speakers. The word was derived into each language from Latin.
If I put the word through a mangler and try to write it as the Romans would have, we would end up with electricitas, with an oblique stem electricitat-. Since a lot of words originally from Latin (and I am not arguing that word electricity is actually one of them, just that it was derived from a Latin root in an analogical fashion), find their reflections in later languages in their oblique form (we see this in the plural forms of western romance language nouns).
A system of derivation - either natural or artificial - tends to follow a certain paradigm and the odd ones out tend to be sucked into the paradigm as well (Icelandic has a few nice examples of this as well if I'm not mistaken) if their base forms resemble it enough. English has words like these: fish (singular), fish (plural), but also fishes (plural) in certain dialects. Some English verbs that used to show vestiges of the old Germanic strong verb classes have transformed into regular ones: as well, as did some verbs that fall into a category called preterite-present verb (which is a verb that has a present tense meaning, but a conjugation in a preterite (simple past) form. Their past tense was originally formed regularly according to the Germanic weak verb system. In English they are more commonly known as modal verbs.
The verb "to owe" for example is originally a preterite-present verb. The only remannt of that preterite-present past is well, its past tense form "ought". While its original meaning was to indicate one's posession of an object, along with the transformation from preterite-present verb to regular Germanic weak verb, its meaning shifted as well, to "to be in debt", with the regular verb "to own" taking over its original meaning.
Okay, I got a little carried away... Back to the topic at hand.
Like I said, there is a large chance that a word from scientific jargon was originally derived from a Latin or Greek word, or a compound of both. The chance that their reflections in other languages will be derived from that same base word is large as well.
(and the TV show it is in reference to of course).
But the most demotivational is when people are told that they can't even have an alternative systemd implementation/fork - of which there are already couple - because GNOME demands the systemd, not just any systemd.
Anyone remember AARD?
Thought and action are to different things. Speaking one's mind is acting on one's thoughts, just as much as otherwise acting out on one's thoughts and urges would be. From there on one enters the big grey area where a legislator could potentially infringe upon one's basic freedoms. Potentially being the operative word here. But the opposite is true as well - by speaking one's mind one could potentially infringe upon the basic freedoms of others as well. One's own freedom ends where those of others begin and vice versa.