There's this new thing called "init.d" which makes things really simple - you can start a system up and step through things, and though the boot takes 5 seconds instead of 1 second, that isn't really a problem.
Once I read the original post about systemd, and all the other let's-invent-a-problem-to-fix nonsense surrounding init.d, I literally hung up my hat and stopped being a syseng. I was a unix guy starting in 93, so it was probably time anyway, but it was the straw that broke my back, as it were.As mentioned, the central responsibility of an init system is to bring up userspace. And a good init system does that fast. I especially "loved" this line: As mentioned, the central responsibility of an init system is to bring up userspace. And a good init system does that fast. No. A good init system does it reliably, with no drama and no politics. A good init system allows one to easily determine the state of a system, and doesn't assume things like GUIs and such. A good unix init system does all this with commands which can be piped and parsed easily with grep and awk - two things the original post about systemd actually complains about. The idea that a unix person would complain about grep and awk was so mind-boggling to me that...well, I just hung up the hat. You did all this nonsense, just to save a few seconds? Because what, the only thing linux is used for, is laptops? Meh.
"no one would need to work, yes, but more importantly, no one would *want* to"
Such a boring argument. Are you not aware there are already people who do precisely that? Volunteerism, the OSS community, people who make a very deliberate decision to work a more altruistic job at 1/10th the pay, turning down full-paying jobs (yes yes, they get paid...only because we don't have a society where food/shelter/energy are given away). It's the core argument to capitalism - that without money to encourage productivity, no one would work - and it ignores the fact that for all but a very brief blip in the history of our species, that is precisely what happened - people worked without being paid money. They worked as a community, to accomplish collective goals.
" I'm just saying that there's a journalistic reason for Gawker to do what it did"
Err...what "journalistic reason" could there possibly be for offering a ransom for an illegal activity, then publishing the results of that activity, for the sole purpose of generating adview/click revenue? Aside from gawker not even having any journalistic content, what in the world is the "journalistic reason" for that?
Now that said, I think there's a moral/ethical reason for creators to willingly do it - and somewhat for the consumers to share it even if it is against the will of the one who created it - but that's because I'm a biased open society guy, and a complete nutjob. I can't though, in all my madness, envision a world/perspective/banana in which there is a "journalistic reason" for this. Someone help me here?
but it's not some intelligent entity that's "better" at it than us
are you so afraid of religion that even science scares you? Over the course of billions of years, systems which fail will cease, and systems which work will succeed. A working system is/was present; saying we could be "learning from nature" means little more than being observant and realizing that many of our problems have already been solved in the system (aka Nature). Where the system has a solution which is too slow, or has a few steps we don't like per se, maybe we tweak it a little...but when you learn from someone you don't simply mimic them - that's not learning. When you learn from someone, you take what they are showing you and adjust it to fit your experiences. Like we can, with Nature.
"some intelligent entity..." - yeesh! Lighten up, Francis!