Ah i see, so an alternative to those coffee pod machines? Less plasticky.

A fork that removes a completely optional feature that you can toggle off, is not a fork, it's just a waste of space on github repository that no one will use.

Why would anyone ever install this instead of just not using the field when using systemd? For any distribution or software which doesn't require this it is completely ignorable and not even mandatory to use in systemd. For any distribution of software which does require this it would be incompatible.

This software serves no purpose.

If you want simplicity you could always use a typewriter instead of a computer. That's sort of the core problem. The simpler you make things the more capability you give up in the process. Either that or you fake simplicity.

There was nothing simple about what systemd replaced initially. It replaced:
- An init system which couldn't function without a shitton of complex scripts extending 100+ lines just to start a program with no consistency.
- An init system which couldn't init anything that was event based which instead started another daemon to track those other programs, i.e. it was an init system which wasn't capable of starting all the services required to be stated.
- An init system which used files as a state rather than being able to actually track processes and then errored out constantly if something was left in a state that didn't match (e.g. smbd crashes, so when you send it a start command it fails saying it's already running despite that not being the case).
- A log system that couldn't capture all logs at all times.
- A log system that was actually split into multiple systems - some kernel driven, some driven by a daemon which in turn dumped text into a variety of files based on complex rules.

That's what simple and everything is a file gets you in reality. There was nothing simple about it.

You do you, but I'm happy trading some developer's management of complexity for my own simplicity as the end user.

It's him guys, I found the boomer. You did a great job of telling everyone you don't know how exams are run gramps.

Do a bit more reading. Chat GPT is a tool, a person is a person who can make their own decisions. When you cheat with ChatGPT you are responsible. When you cheat by paying someone to take an exam on your behalf then you are both responsible. When this is done for financial gain by one party it becomes criminal fraud.

The person jailed pleaded guilty to the following criminal offenses:
1. Fraud by false representation - by claiming to be someone you are not you're in breach of the Fraud Act 2006. ChatGPT doesn't do this, the cheater does this.
2. Cause computer to perform function to secure unauthorised access to a program/data - using someone else's credentials to access a computer system is a breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. ChatGPT doesn't do this, it only provides information, the cheater uses the computer.
3. Conceal/disguise/convert/transfer/remove criminal property - This one may be weird to some, but the name of the act should clarify: It's the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, you're liable here when you commit crime for profit.

Englishing has nothing to do with it. The University has nothing to do with it. What you think words mean is irrelevant. There are laws, laws have definitions, those definitions and laws applied to this case and the man was jailed by someone trained and competent to interpret those laws.

That makes complete sense

It does. One thing I noticed back in the day during the big switcheroo is that my Arch laptop (eee 900) started to boot slower when systemd came in. Maybe they fixed that now, this was a while ago but it did not live up to the hype and even its own rationale in that regard originally.

So I'm not saying the reasons behind systemd were poor, but the implementation left something to be desired, it was quite buggy originally (it's mostly been beaten into shape), and quite a lot of it is just really mediocre and opinionated.

Does it work? Mostly. Does it do some stuff that was painful under sysv? Sure. It is good software? Not really.

Me too!

It also blocks all those dildo popup ads when I'm looking for pirate software!

Thank goodness for Texas!

No, SystemD wants to grow up into a REAL despotic gatekeeping process that locks you out of your own hardware for idiotic reasons that only its developer thinks are important, just like the big corporate offerings do!

Its just a humble bit of free software with big dreams! Wont you love it?

[massive sarcasm]

Less smarmy, I feel that this is just more of the same basic mindset from the systemD development folks. They have yet to find an onerous feature that they have been unwilling to embrace, and then angrily evangelize for.

"oh, but California said they want this done-- Nevermind that they explicitly exempted FOSS projects and OSes, That's not important, we are doing our best to satisfy this new legal requirement! Yes! This requirement that we dont actually have to follow! We need to follow it! Yes! We're doing our part!"

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

For clarity.

But CITIZEN! THAT is an OBSTACLE to police investigations!

Don't you want police to investigate crimes!?
You aren't SOFT ON CRIME, are you!? Only criminals would have anything to fear from expanded police powers, citizen!

Remember Citizen, Reauthorizing FISA is absolutely ESSENTIAL to our national security, because the gatekeeping by all those bad, onerous warrants we used to need were OBSTACLES to INVESTIGATION! Those mean, bad terrorists that hate our way of life are aided and abetted by our heroic men and women being stymied in this most important work! (Pay absolutely no attention to what's in the Kissinger memos! We're good guys! You can TRUST us!)

--- That is to say, 'We gotta be able to do this whenever, however, however often, and for whatever reason we want!' Is indeed *exactly the thing they cannot be allowed to have*, (for the very reason you just illustrated), and is also expressly they very thing they have been crying publicly about until govt gave it to them.

There is not a category where it is at once cheap and easy to do, and 'does not get abused'.

That means it cannot be cheap and easy to do, if you want to prevent its abuse.

It has seemed to me, for a very long time, that modern AI systems would need to be integrated with standard RDBMS systems for reliable persistant storage of raw information, some sort of no-sql database (memcache or some variant) for persistant storage of associations, some sort of document database for blocks of textual information, a SPARQL system for searching semantically-marked information within the document database, and a more old-fashioned back-propogation NN to provide a store of understanding that the user can directly manipulate.

Probabalistic classifiers are all fine and good, but only for a subset of the tasks needed. The above structure is a very loose, wildly-speculative initial framework. It's almost certain that if you actually tried building an integrated multi-model system, that you'd end up making a lot of changes to this basic idea, but that you'd end up having to implement the same core concepts that are identified in it.

The British government, in a desperate bid to increase profitability, has trademarked Alan Turing himself.

How is ChatGPT supposed to know the difference? Both involve hands and mouths, so clearly it's the same context. :P

From their careful selection of text, they WANTED it to mean something else so badly that they couldn't handle putting in the full text. It's a common blight on today's Internet, where people want other people's writings to mean something other than what was meant by the writer, so carefully select the words they read.

That's the entire point. Trying to solve other people's problems NEVER WORKS. You CANNOT control others into responsible behaviour, but you CAN place them in a position where they will choose to be responsible of their own accord. It is the ONLY way that works. It is the only way that has ever worked. If you look at computer programming, you will see this repeated over and over - well-meaning "hard rules" are ignored, STANDARDS are kept.

You must give them parameters and force them to find their own solution within those.