Indeed. However, the response justifies their not investing much effort.
You seem to have trouble understanding text. Re-read what I wrote. Hint: I never claimed they do not exist. And second hint (since you seem to need it): The "bullshit" may have referred to something else than the "existence".
As to your example: That is contrived. Of course what to do depends on the concrete details, not some abstract and artificial situation. In a concrete situation it turns out that it is the task of a service depending on another one to be able to handle it going down. It is decidedly not the task of a generic reliability-wrapper. That is just abysmally bad design.
Which failed. All attempts using more modern technology have also failed. I can conclude conclude that some group of educators is insane: They are trying the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome. It may also be a factor, that the "Peter principle" was discovered in the educational field and only latter found to apply elsewhere as well.
This has been "envisioned" time and again for at least half a century. It always fails. Sure, most teachers are not really good, but as it turns out, they are a lot better than a good one on a TV screen. Distance education works only for those that can also self-learn. That experience has been made by distance educators time and again, whether snail-mail and paper, email, TV, videos or interactive virtual classrooms were used. For most peoples, an educator that is not physically there does not cut it.
This whole thing is only intended to make education a lot cheaper, not better. And it fails at that.
Part of being a moral adult is not doing whatever you want, but doing the part of what you want that won't harm others. Most so-called adults ain't, they're just old people.
Very much this. Quite a few of these old people have the self-restraint of children and ethics worse than many children. This is why greed and fear rules the world and nearly destroyed it a couple of times.
Sure these things exist. But the are not _needed_ at all as part of the init-system and they are not needed to be the same for all daemons on the system either.
For example, DJB's daemontools work perfectly well (they are only "cludgy" if you are clumsy or stupid). I have done some special-purpose variants myself, one of which worked reliably for a real-time high-volume data collection task for more than a decade. The claim that anything like systemd is needed here is a pure lie, plain and simple.
Only somebody truly clueless about the history of computing could make such a statement. Also, relevance?
Indeed. And if all the other places they screw up where not enough, this combination of incompetence and arrogance when working on _infrastructure_ would be quite enough to never allow their trash on any of my systems.
Where did you miss the statement that even in this simple, non-complex fashion (i.e. not like systemd at all) I think this is a bad idea?
As somebody that has worked with several commercial Unixes, I can only call your statement utter bullshit. Sure, some special-purpose server-only installations where software done by incompetent people needs to run may actually have that need, but that is not the target systemd is aiming for. At all. And aren't you forgetting that that systemd is usually advertised with "faster boot-times!" to the masses? You must have misplaced your shill-instruction sheet.
Plausible. Also a strong indication of inexperience and incompetence on the side of the systemd team. Of course we already knew that. It is not like they could have looked at what was already there and find solutions that work, like mounting/umounting NFS at a different time....
That is bullshit. A decade ago, they were "embedded devices". Calling an embedded device a "computer just weaker" just reveals that you do not understand how things works. With your definition, a dumb pocket calculator is a computer, as they have low power MCUs these days.
(x)inetd does not control what it attaches, the user does and via plain-text files that are in easy to find standard locations. And no, I do not use them. The whole idea struck me as pretty problematic wayyyy back.
Another characteristic of the systemd-cretins: They think they know everything, and all others are clueless. They also think that anybody that does not like systemd has no clue about UNIX system administration. The actual reality is very different.
A decade ago phones where phones. Now they are computers with tacked-on phone functionality.
Already a little bit older, but still completely relevant:
- There are no technical merits of systemd that are important or critical, just some convenience issues
- Systemd is in hurried development, a stable feature set is nowhere in sight
- The development leads are known incompetents with inflated egos and no communication skills
- There are a number of design decisions that are very, very bad for security and stability
At the same time I see:
- Systemd is pushed strongly with emotional (not factual) arguments
-> This is a coordinated and targeted propaganda campaign. A campaign focused on technical merits is not even attempted seriously.
- Systemd opponents are ridiculed, insulted and their arguments are not taken seriously, very much SJW-style
- Systemd is getting very hard to avoid
I can only deduce that there _must_ be one of or a combination of the following going on:
- Linux was getting too hard to hack and the intelligence community is pushing for systemd to fix that
- Linux did not generate enough support revenue for Red Hat and this is intended to fix that
- Red Hat wants total control over Linux and systemd is their attempt to establish that
So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, the most probable explanation is that it
is a duck and hence I conclude that something nefarious is going on and the last three
items are the most likely candidates IMO. I cannot believe that two known incompetent
hacks with bad personalities can screw over a whole large tech-savvy community all by
themselves. They must have significant, coordinated help, with significant propaganda
and manipulation experience. Whether it is military PsyOps or just commercial PR, the
effects are the same. And they are massively negative and destructive for Linux and
its community if not repelled decisively.