Cloud computers are not servers in the classic sense they are nodes. The entire cloud or at least huge chunks of it plays the role of a server. For example in a server storage is per machine in the cloud you have many boxes dedicated to managing storage. In a server you have tiny applications acting as message brokers like the TCP/IP stack. In a cloud you have whole machines acting as message brokers.
In the case of X11 there is way too much cruft and things implemented for the wrong standards, backwards compatibility. In the case of init the cruft is scattered over hundreds of daemons all offering services. That's what's being gotten rid of.
I don't know Poettering. I just want a daemon monitoring standard now.
No it isn't. Perfectly legal.
I'm a bit iffy in calling that a major distribution, 20 years ago absolutely, today? Also they long ago lost support for most of the applications that make use of systemd (so far enterprise applications and Gnome). But OK. They going with a classic approach on this like many other things.
Why didn't the USA just change their constitution to allow for real trials? Allowing for a medieval type of trial just because one country happens to have a dated phrase in its constitution hardly strikes me as a good solution.
Wow. Trial by jury has tremendous support in the USA, I'd assume something like 98+%. Even people who supported torture and military tribunals for terrorism suspects supported their right to have a jury as part of the military tribunal. If you want the right to trial by jury to be eliminated that's a much more serious debate where a deeply held belief would need to change. There is nowhere near the level of support for an international court as their is for trial by jury.
However, the point is not whether it makes a difference or not, but that the US government is trying to get Microsoft to break the law.
GP was arguing it did make a difference that there was a real danger. If you think he's wrong and this is a question of principle with no practical threat then fine. But then your argument is with him not me.
Indeed. The difference is that the American government seeks to apply its laws and rules everywhere in the world, while other governments typically keep it to their own country.
I gave you an example already, the ICC. Another example is the restriction on Google. Or for that matter this very case, the attempt to impose restrictions on Azure.
I agree. I think 80% of what people wanted from systemd is in OpenRC with 0% of the risk. Had init changed some to add most of the functionality people want in systemd, systemd wouldn't have evolved. But it did and now we should be dealing with the world as it exists.
If someone wants something that is equally problematic today were individual solutions are evolving, we need a networking stack that has a better understanding of latency. Now is the time for the old school Unix guys to be fixing that, before the pot boils over.
The architecture doesn't matter too much. Systemd itself will be easily replaceable. For example FreeBSD is porting Apple's launchd over (openlaunchd). Given that systemd is based on launchd and that the FreeBSD people are going to want to run Gnome... I suspect that by 2020 or so openlaunchd would be an alternative, and likely one without the architectural issues.
You've heard time and time again why the foundation needs to be ripped up.
Init doesn't offer the range of services that modern daemon maintenance need nor does it offer a foundation for it. Thus modern daemons end up repeating boilerplate to add functionality that should be available in the init system to themselves. The Unix philosophy is "do one thing and do it well". Not meeting the needs of the direct users (daemons) means init no longer is "doing it well".
Linux's primary market share is on servers.
Actually at this point Linux's primary market share is on embedded. After that nodes for cloud computing. Then Android (approaching 10b). Then probably individual servers of the type you are thinking of.
In practice, there should be different distribution based on the server and desktop.
There are. But both the server oriented distributions like RedHat and Debian and the desktop oriented distributions like Ubuntu and Mageia are going in this direction. If it were a desktop only feature that's not the move you would expect.
There is a solution for that: containerization and virtualization. The end user for actual physical hardware should be the IT infrastructure management software not human end users. Genuine end users should't care about individual piece of hardware in 2014.
How is systemd proprietary? And how would it be difficult to replace systemd with another full featured init system a decade or two from now if that became desirable? Your comment doesn't make sense.
There is no issue. You can object to having the init system become complex but having the init system become complex doesn't make it proprietary it makes it complex.
Similarly init systems aren't designed by different developers. They are just going to use the norms in place.
I agree this is the same debate we are having on Wayland. The Unix luddite crowd hears about deep structural problems for years, then finally there is a fix and then they start objecting. If something like Gentoo's OpenRC, which is much more an init version 2, had been in place a decade ago systemd might never have evolved. But the people who are objecting to systemd fundamentally just like init and that's not an acceptable option.
The only major distribution that doesn't use systemd is Gentoo and that's because they have their own very interesting init replacement. There is no boycott. There are objections to a decision that's been made by some isolated individuals who object.
Apple is the opposite. The last subversion (i.e. the highest possible Y in OS X 10.X.Y or iOS X.Y ) is always rather nice.
should read "addresses concerns of non-US populations"...about the ability of the US Government to pry into the private affairs of non-US citizens.
Well certainly they have some concerns about that. But mostly if you aren't a US citizen and don't have heavy involvement with the USA what difference does it make if your data gets transferred to a criminal court? They are just going to toss it.
Not that the US Government gives a flying fuck about the views of non-US citizens. If the US Government finally starts to behave decently and respect the views of non-US citizens (even for the most bogus of corporate-funded reasons), it's a start...
Your governments don't care about American people's opinion either. Governments answer to their own domestic population.
Mostly European governments have been unwilling to negotiate with the American government in good faith. For example In 2001 the Europe was pushing for the creation of an international criminal court. The USA agreed but constitutionally it would require the right to trial by jury. Europe refused to offer that concession which made the treaty completely unconstitutional and thus permanently shattered the ability for their to be a global justice system. And to what end? Your politics is simply too messy and too conflicted. I think you should look to the problems you can do something about.