But Linux is for desktops. For servers, you're always better off using BSD, which actually was born for servers.
Indeed, these scripts suck, while systemd's service unit files are very easy to edit and maintain. I wish we could have a an old-school init system that allowed configuration in that syntax: The best of both worlds.
Why not Intel? The latest Intel lines are pretty good (I game a lot on one of those), and have their drivers in the upstream linux kernel.
AMD is simply so awful in terms of drivers, that it doesn't really matter if the hardware is slightly better.
From TFA: Thomas prefers a layered feature exposure so that users can enjoy certain advanced features at a later stage after they get accustomed to the basic functionality of the application.
I assume that they'll keep the options around, just not mixed with the very basic options. A big issue with KDE right now, is that the settings windows of any application has half a dozen tabs, with dozens of options each. The very basic options and most common options should be grouped together, an advanced settings slightly on the side. Otherwise, it's just too intimidating.
Can you show at least one example of a special requirement a program had that could be satisfied with init and not with systemd?
Indeed: The fact that it no longer follows the unix design or philosophy is a huge change. The fact than one piece of software has eaten up the funcionality of dozens of very-used programas is also a big change.
Linux client: Still propietary, something many *nix users actually care about.
Follows symlinks: So does almost any application out there. That's not a good thing, it's just a lack of a bug.
Automatic full resolution photo uploading from mobile: "full resolution photo" is another way of saying "large files". How does the content of a file make a difference?
Spideroak refuses to release the source for their client (though they claim they will, some day). As it is, it's just an unproven claim that it's encrypted and secure. For all we know there might be a huge security hole making it all worthless (possible an accidental one, btw).
If the graphics subsystem fails, or I have to go to single-user mode, I have nano.
If you had access to that machine and got a chance to manually install it before the graphics subsystem failed. What happes if you didn't?
Which are the other two new companies?
"+" or plenty of other special characters. Stuff like quotes can even be valid if used properly, while we still have some website that won't even accept a dash/underscore.
Putting aside the whole whitespace debate(*), I'm pretty sure that python has its own list of issues. Maybe not to the same extent as PHP, but they exist.
* For which I personally do have trouble with python - I want the computer to bend to my will, not the other way around.
The same can be said about C: if forces you to declare variables, and bend to the computers will (and not the other way around). This is true for any language. You merely chose to critize one about that, and let it slide for the rest.
Actually, you're right...up to the point where the police might get involved. Also, the power that flight attendants and gate agents have (which is backed by the FAA, whereby refusal to comply with their orders is a felony...I kid you not) also crosses the line between private entity/government. Since Kimberly *cough* fucking cunt *cough* had that power backing her up, I would say this does indeed become a First Amendment situation.
It might be a felony to refuse to comply on a plane, but, outside of the plane, and forcing you to alter content on you publish? That's not gonna stand up anywhere. What's next: the flight attendant forcing you to give them a BJ?
and threatened to have him arrested? you think that's fully legal?
I honestly don't get why the man gave into the threat. He could have just said "Ok, call the police.". There was really no reason to arrest him.
If you're not doing anything ilegal, and somebody threatens to call the police, just let them do it.
No, you don't need to explain why it's pejorative; what I asked is for you to explain why it's laughable, something competely different.
I quote by-piece, because you make different statements, and I reply to each one individually. Replying inline has been proper etiquette for several decades now.
Finally, no, none of my statements were replied above. But since this is your second reply attempting to divert attention from the subject at hand, I'm guessing your merely using a Red Hering to disguise your lack of proper argument.