Freenet is also based on middle-out compression.

No. Trying to push 30TB into Freenet will be interpreted as an attack on the network by other peers and they'll disconnect from your peer.

Freenet is better viewed as a communication medium than a storage medium. Data is prioritized according to demand, somewhat like an LRU cache. You can't upload 30TB and expect the network to preserve it for you.

On liability, running a Freenet peer is more like running network infrastructure that automatically routes and caches other people's traffic than intentionally publishing it. US law explicitly recognizes this distinction in the DMCA's provisions for transitory network communications and system caching. We discuss this in more detail in the FAQ.

You obviously haven't tried Freenet. You can join our room on River and you'll see no spam, no fraud, no hate speech, none of that.

Decentralized doesn't mean unmoderated. Systems built on Freenet can be moderated however their creators and communities want. River is moderated.

The difference is that nobody running one service gets to decide what everyone else is allowed to run.

....Except that is, in of itself, not a crime.

(Meanwhile, it is widely documented that "illegal immigrants" are, as a group, far, far, far more law-abiding than actual citizens)

"criminal trespass" requires that (1) you are notified that you are not allowed on the premesis, and (2) Not leaving or [re-]entering knowing that you were not allowed to be there.

In other words, no crime has been committed at the time of the "arrest".

Your argument fails at the starting line. Age verification is "necessary" because the law of the land requires it.

You can wail and gnash your teeth all you want at application authors, OS vendors, and so forth, but at the end of the day, it's their asses (and bank accounts) on the line, not yours. Don't like it? Direct your wrath towards your governmental representatives; the odds are they were directly responsible for enacting the shitty regulations that everyone else is stuck having to implement.

That makes as much sense as getting angry at Intel because IBM chose to use the 8088 in the 5150 PC.

Except you're comparing apples to oranges. In the systemd case you manually created a unit, interactively started it, and manually debugged it (also interactively). In the sysv case, you ... copied a file, manually started it, and assumed it worked properly because no errors were reported on the console (which is _very_ dependent on the service+script in question)

If it failed to start in systemd (ie step 4), you'd have been told immediately. you could also run 'systemctl status oolama' to get the, well, status including the last 10 or so log lines including stdout/stderr/syslog output. no need to play with mucking with the logs. Which is a much better starting point than debugging "sometihng went wrong" in the sysv script world.

(BTW, you created a bunch of extra work for yourself in the systemd case, 3+4 are trivially combinable. And do you really want a service manager to automatically reload+apply changes you're making while you're interactively editing its configuration? FFS...)

In other words, you learned to do something one way, and now you're too damn lazy to learn anything else.

The "Unix Way" is "do one thing" -- not "do one thing well", because the priority was on the simplicity of implementation -- over ease-of-use, consistency, and even correctness.

I'll grant you that sysvinit (barely) does one thing, but only Helsinki syndrome sufferers would think it does that one thing "well".

Please explain why is it okay to reference/look at other stuff in a SysvInit world, but not in the systemd world.

And, pray tell, what does logging format have to do with writing launcher scripts?

(Incidently, journald is so vastly superior to the previous logging environment because it captures *everything* a service produces -- stdout, stderr, and syslog -- and serializes/timestamps it into a single stream. No need to play games redirecting (or not) the program output and correlating that with syslog.

Pray tell, what "portability standards" apply to how a system boots and manages itself?

The only thing that UNIX(tm) and POSIX mandates is that PID1 is the ultimate child-reaper, and MUST NOT DIE. Otherwise.. every CertifiedUNIX(tm) did things entirely its own, non-portable way. Yet another reason why Linux won, even before systemd.

(Meanwhile, are you seriously asserting that you are running production workloads on a modern non-Linux UNIX? And if you are, please enlighten us as to how those UNIXen manage themselves. Hint: It's not sysvinit!)

Each 'config file' is a bog-standard "ini" file, whereas your script (which is likely *much much* longer than 20 lines and calls numerous external tools, each with their own cmdline syntax/configs etc) is freeform bash (or zsh, or csh, or heck, even a compiled binary) file.

Meanwhile, are you seriously saying that you can write a crontab or a new sysvinit script (or [x]inetd hook, or, or, or...) without *ever* looking at _any_ documentation (or another example)? Note that "write the script" is not enough here, you also have to properly integrate it into the correct place in your distro. Which is different from most other distros out there, because $freedom or sometihng. Quick, what's the correct set of symlinks you need for each runlevel? And if you answer "but my distro has tools to manage that for me", congrats, what's the syntax for the embedded comments in the individual scripts to enable those tools (eg chkconfig) to run and set things up in the correct order? And how, pray tell, did you know how those things worked without reading some sort of documentation?

FFS, y'all are such hypocrites.

You mean... like the former JCPOA with its sharp enforcement teeth? (that everyone other than Trump's ego agreed was actually working before he tore it up?)

Over the past half-decade (ie since the current "country" has existed), Iran has not been the aggressor in any of the conflicts it's been involved with, nor has it broken any treaty it has signed. Why do I bring this up? Because the other side -- namely US (and Israel's hand up Trump's posterior) has repeatedly been the [direct!] aggressor, and also demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to adhere to anything it signs.