I always assumed that the real reason why UEFI was introduced, was to preserve Microsoft's monopoly by attempting to destroy the ability to dual boot operating systems on PC hardware, while also giving it just enough superficial flashing lights, that excuses would be made for it as "innovation," by the same group of treasonous idiots who think that systemd deserves to exist.

After Firefox got rid of the old addon format, I went to Pale Moon for what felt like a year, but was probably considerably less; given the nature of the cave I live in, time moves very strangely for me these days.

I kept Firefox around though, mainly because PM became incapable of posting comments to YouTube, and when I posted said comments, I started noticing how much faster and less laggy video loading and playing was with FF.

So now with the new computer, I've mainly only used Firefox, and am enjoying the greater responsiveness. I agree with anyone who claims that Mozilla are arrogant , but I also don't care much, because I'm aware that wanting me to live in my pod, eat my bugs and shut up is what [b][i]every[/i][/b] corporation wants me to do these days; Mozilla are not unique in that regard.

I do not like the twenty first century.

This misses the point.

We don't want systemd to be able to emulate, in whatever degree, the previous init system. We do NOT WANT SYSTEMD. Not in any context, not in any scenario, and regardless of how you promote it.

We do not want systemd, and in whatever legal and ethical ways are available to us, we are going to fight to ensure a continued scenario in which we are not required to have or use systemd. You are not going to force it on us, and no argument you make, and nothing else you do, is going to change that.

I know that many of you either do not, or do not WANT to understand the fact that choice, in and of itself, is the central issue here; and choice is something which systemd's promoters are determined to prevent Linux users from having.

As a result of that, systemd has been, and will continue to be rejected by people who value having both fundamental understanding and control of the operating system that they use.

I consider anyone who supports or endorses systemd to be both a personal enemy, and a traitor to the continued integrity of the Linux operating system.

I would always run with an amount of swap equal to my RAM; but unless I'm using an SSD as you say, just because I will always allocate swap, that doesn't mean I think it's a wonderful thing, or that I would actively use it willingly if I had a better option.

Swap is essentially redundancy, or an emergency feature. It's something that's there if you really need it; but a non-SSD hard drive is always going to be slower than RAM, and not all of us have SSDs. Sometimes it's because the architecture of our overall system is from before SSDs existed, so using one would mean buying an entirely new machine. If you think I should just bite the bullet and buy a new computer so I can run an SSD, I'd be willing to give you my Paypal address.

Smart cities are designed to make life easier for their residents: better traffic management by clearing routes, making sure the public transport is running on time and having cameras keeping a watchful eye from above.

No, they aren't. This is exclusively an excuse for technologically enabled imprisonment and enslavement. They just mention the supposed "advantages" in order to make stupid people more willing to accept it.

I am looking forward to people eventually realising that the only real end results of electronic technology, are subjugation and death.

Yes, sometimes decentralized, small encapsulated components are a win, but sometimes monolithic designs where the pieces can talk to each other easily are a win

I actually do see what you're saying, here. In The Art of UNIX Programming, Eric Raymond mentions that occasionally there are tasks where it simply isn't possible to make them small.

I don't have a problem with systemd being monolithic, as much as with the parts of said monolith being so tightly welded together. The other problem is lack of transparency and discoverability. Systemd is hard to understand, and for a big, monolithic project, transparency becomes more important, not less.

Lennart Poettering is an arrogant bully, with a proven track record of writing bad software and attempting to shove it down everyone else's throats. Systemd isn't his first nightmare; some of us remember PulseAudio as well. If you don't believe me about his software being excessively complex, go and look at Pulse's configuration files, and see if you can understand them.

http://without-systemd.org/ [without-systemd.org] Take a stand against systemd!

I can hardly begin to describe, the extent to which this warms my heart, or the sense of hope it gives me. I had feared that Linux's users as a whole had simply rolled over and accepted Lennart's crap. This is a revolution that needs to continue.

I always had a strange, nagging gut feeling about GitHub. The sort of feeling Han Solo was talking about, right before the debri field of the planet Alderan came into view, during the first Star Wars film. So I never started using it. I got an account very early, before I fully realised what I was looking at; but once said realisation set in, said account was never used.

I think it's because I remembered what had happened to the Great Library of Alexandria; and as a result, I really didn't think that building an online software equivalent of that was a good idea. Some of you probably understand why in engineering terms, a single point of failure is not considered desirable.

Now, the proverbial Great Library is going to be in the hands of the Linux operating system's oldest and most tenacious opponent; a corporation with a consistently depraved and parasitic modus operandi.

What could possibly go wrong?

I used to get really angry about things like this. I've seen one initiative after another after another, to get transparent, open, non-corporate software and standards obsoleted, and replaced with incomprehensible corporate crap, which ultimately has no other purpose or effect, than to eliminate the ability of the end user to either understand or control, the hardware or software they use.

I am becoming resigned to it, however; because I've realised that the relentlessly tenacious, compulsive stupidity and amorality of the Millennials can not be defeated. They rammed systemd through, and everyone just rolled over and capitulated, and anyone who didn't was just called a troll until they shut up.

So go ahead. Destroy everything in the name of corporate profit and looking superficially cool. In the end, you'll only harm yourselves.

Am I the only one noticing that every post attached to this article, which is either critical of systemd, or points out that Linux is controlled by Red Hat, has been moderated Redundant?

Note to systemd advocates:- If you want us to believe you that systemd is [b][i]not[/i][/b] insidious, then having shills attempt to crush literally any dissenting opinion about it, is unlikely to produce the outcome you're looking for.

The single biggest mistake that systemd's advocates made, was the degree to which they tried to censor any criticism of it whatsoever. Doing that is not going to shut people up; and it is also not going to convince those of us already hostile to it, that it is in any way beneficial to us. It actually just makes you (and systemd itself) look downright evil.

Now please, go ahead and mod this post Redundant as well, just to reassure me that systemd is in fact both harmless and truly wonderful, and I'm just being a paranoid schizophrenic.

While I know you think it does, advocating change purely for its' own sake, without thinking about whether or not such change is actually beneficial, does not make you look intelligent.

There are a lot of people who dislike systemd, and they have valid reasons for that, which have nothing to do with them being technophobic.

I know I will get hate for this, but I stopped using Linux when systemd was forcibly and mysteriously rammed down almost everyone's throat. I've always known that systemd is to Linux what UEFI is to the PC itself; an abstraction layer allowing control for the intelligence community.

Call me a troll, scream at me as much as you like; but if as a Linux user, you support systemd, you are a traitor. It is extremely simple.

Unfortunately though, many do not. Said propaganda has been working too well; and the other problem is that most people do not have the psychological strength to avoid caving into it, even if they can see that it is factually false.

And they are massively negative and destructive for Linux and its community if not repelled decisively.

Sadly, they are not going to be repelled. Reddit's main Linux sub is almost completely supportive of systemd. Say anything against it whatsoever, and you will be trolled and downvoted into oblivion.

On the other hand, I don't completely agree with you at this point, about systemd being entirely devoid of technical merit, or at least not in the minds of some. While I don't like the idea of it myself, I've encountered several people who've looked at it and think that many of its' features are worth keeping, but that the overall design is bad and needs to be re-worked.

In other words, it's given us some good features, but they will probably need to be re-incorporated into another project, with a better overall design.