I think I missed the poll. Can someone support the statement with a poll/survey data?
My experience is the opposite.
There is enough of a divide over systemd to make it an option or a fork will result.
If debian does not allow turning systemd off, I think the following will happen:
- debian fork created, allow turning systemd off.
- majority of debian users adopt fork.
- majority of systemd people use Ubuntu or fedora.
- systemd-off becomes option in Debian
- systemd-off becomes option in Ubuntu and Fedora
This tablet is still 4:3 aspect ratio, like your parents TV.
If you intend on watching videos, perhaps you should get one of the following:
iphone 6+ tablet/phone
Nexus 6 tablet/phone
Nexus 7 tablet
The Systemd distribution (or GNU/Systemd/Linux as it is now called) deserves the Man of the Year award this year, because it has unified so many stand alone Unix style components into one unified quality program. By unifying everything into one program, we have eliminated redundant code, bugs, and rallied all of the Linux community behind the one user-space kernel. We can continue this trend of streamlining and eliminating waste, by merging in a compositor, a browser engine. We believe that molecularity will only allow the user to be confused with choices and that good incremental development is like making good stew. Throw everything in.
> This is the only thing stopping unfettered hoarding of wealth.
Except for corporations, which have no lifespan limit.
The distinction between an Agnostic and an Atheist does not serve any real purpose. Except, perhaps that the Agnostic is scared to admit their belief.
Instead of God, consider Bigfoot.
Atheist: Does not believe that Bigfoot exists. (reason: no proof)
Agnostic: Does not know if Bigfoot exists (though has no proof)
Theist: Believes Bigfoot exist (though has no proof)
Gnostic: Knows that Bigfoot exists (though has no proof)
The above list is ordered from most logical to least logical.
If there is actual scientific proof of Bigfoot/God, then perhaps we could reverse the list.
"secure commercial product"
I assume you implying that closed source is more secure.
Doe you really believe that? Why?
- Do you think security by obscurity is real security?
- Do you believe that closed source has more code audits?
- Do you believe that there is less change of NSA or other back doors in closed source software.
"IIS was never vulnerable..."
Really? Try a search for "IIS SSL vulnerability".
"systemd versus sysv init most visibly leads to faster boot".
That was the original marketing. systemd of course is much much more than boot.
Systemd touches every part of the OS.
Upstart was bad. Systemd is worse. Both were born as boot/init systems and are unconstrained in scope.
Any program unconstrained in scope will grow into a monolithic mess.
Upstart was unnecessary in Ubuntu. Systemd is not necessary in Fedora or Debian.
There are other ways to get fast boots, without create another monolithic do-everything daemon with spaghetti dependencies.
Basic software engineering principles (and Unix principles), should tell you that do-everything daemons, like upstart, systemd, hald are bad ideas.
With such complex, unmodular core Linux systems, Linux based OS's will grow increasingly more unstable and insecure.
Also, systemd and upstart make Linux much less suitable for embedded systems.
The choices, I guess, are:
Fork the pre-systemd Debian.
Start fresh, perhaps even starting with the simple event based init system from the most popular Linux distribution in the world
why not give up on dbus, and just use binder, which is already supported in the kernel?
Personally, I _do not want_ this.
While, we are at it, I do not want do-everything daemons like upstart or systemd. These monolithic programs of undefined scope are poor examples of software engineering, and not needed.
But real engineers are working behind the scenes every day to make existing auto technologies more efficient.
Think of this as a building block to the future.
Did Ford marketing write this?
Real engineers...working behind the behind the scenes every day... creating building blocks of the future.
That could be my wordy, but non-informative job description.
Adding, some "Airplane",
Real engineers bust their buns every day creating building blocks of the future. You tell your old man that.
Perhaps the article was written in 2006?
which one is the space shuttle?
Your comparison comparison is like comparing monkeys with the Eiffel tower.
If MIPS would sell a cubieboard sized SBC, as open as Beagle, Panda or Cubie (more open than the raspberry pi), sign me up.