What, tools that any competent sysadmin can actually understand and customize? We cannot have that!
You know, for a known systemd-shill, you are being exceptionally lazy here. Methinks all this reflection of my arguments is because you have nothing of your own.
Fascinatingly, none of the self-destructiveness claimed by the systemd fanatics against the systemd opponents has ever manifested itself. Maybe it is just propaganda?
Indeed, they are. At least those integrated into the system. I found that whenever I implement some service, I need special things for monitoring and restarting it anyways. It is really not hard doing your own service manager that then just gets started by init.
I agree to that. Nothing important is dependent on systemd, except maybe udev. But even that can be replaced with reasonable effort if there is enough motivation. And Gentoo already has a replacement with eudev. Trying an "embrace and extend" move on Linux is ultimately futile. Sure, you can make a lot of people waste a lot of time, but that is it.
Giants collapse slowly. Or rather bloated monsters do.
This fight is not over. From all the error-reports on the mailing-lists of the distros that have started using systemd, at the moment the only thing the opponents need to do is watch the fireworks and occasionally remind people that there are superior init systems and service managers.
We will see how this plays out. I expect there will be some rather quiet reversal in several distros in the not too distant future. And if not, there is no real need to have a Linux kernel under a GNU system. I also see no really serious problems keeping SYSVinit going. The only hurdle seems to be udev, but there is eudev and if that does not work out, I never really had any need of udev in the first place. Overall, it probably cost me more time than it saved. I may just go back to ultra-reliable static device files.
A lethal trap that sits in a place you do not expect is a pretty big threat. And no, we cannot make autonomous drones that hunt specific people down.
Physicalist bullshit. Your claim is religion, not science.
The only thing we know is that there is an interface possibility. Everything else is speculation.
Just proves my point: You have no clue what you are talking about. The observation of intelligence in humans is an interface observation, it is completely unclear whether it gets created there and how that would work if so.
Of course if you assume physicalism, then you can deduce physicalism. That is circular reasoning however. The scientifically sound answer to "Does the brain generate human intelligence?" is "We do not know.". Also note that even if that were the case, it would not at all "prove" that AI is possible. It would just mean that biologically generated intelligence is possible, but with a few quirks, like consciousness and free will and a rather low average level of intelligence.
You seem to be humor-impaired. Or maybe functionally illiterate. It is really implausible that you have missed the first half of that sentence.
Getting a change of this nature implemented globally is exceptionally difficult and may well be impossible. If you believe anything else, then you are boundless naive.
The demonising is all yours. I did not say anything about the will of the farmers to help at all.
The scientists are looking for potential negative effects. I am saying getting farmers to implement this will be problematic. If you cannot distinguish the two, then you have no business commenting.
You start with fighting human stupidity and ignorance. In order to contribute to that, please go kill yourself now.