This is anti-systemd FUD. Implying that applications which work without systemd are going to stop doing so. Suggesting that Linux distributions adopted systemd because it's good for distributors and not because users actually want it. We are "forced" to use systemd's udev implementation. Please.
There are extremely few use cases where your app may want to integrate with systemd. Out of those, you get again a small percentage that can't be trivially made optional. (99.9% is just optional notification and socket passing) Outside of large projects which are interested in full system integration like gnome, nobody breaks apps to not work without systemd.
Except none of these are true, they're just things people have made up to conceal the fact they oppose systemd for ideological reasons. There's little to no technical arguments against systemd - it's fast, much more robust than what came before it, and services 99% of usecases.
Users DID want systemd. Ask any sys admin, most much prefer systemd.
Also systemd doesn't "force" anything. Most distributions don't even ship all systemd projects, just a couple.
systemd-init IS small. The idea that systemd is a big ole monolith is just not true, and one glance at the git repo reveals that.
oh definitely not, and it's a matter of record. Red Hat and Poettering wanted systemd in order to control more of the platform; this is why they absorbed in udev (which had been a separate repo), came out saying that there are certain parts of the system that, despite all this being open source, were forbidden to modify or replicate, and stacked the debian voting. Systemd at the time sucked, incredibly, even worse than it does today, and routinely bricked or crashed systems. The adoption was forced and 100% political.
systemd is, of course,today a continuing shambling feature factory behemoth in which hundreds of product managers try to shoehorn in more mandatory features in order to cement grip on the platform. That's why you get this ridiculous dns nonsense, this ridiculous container nonsense, this ridiculous cron nonsense, hostnamed (!), the list is endless.
The technical argument is that it's a giant tasteless bag of ever increasing poorly implemented scope. The rest of Unix, by comparison, is generally not that way. If you pick up a BSD or even an alpine, you'll find that you don't need a bunch of badly written, hacked together garbage in order to get your work done. The system can be entirely readable and repeatable without cramming a bunch of cruft and poor decisions into pid 1.
The idea that systemd doesn't 'force' anything is, of course, hilarious. Systemd is designed to try to be the ultimate mandatory dependency for essentially everything on the system. That's the way Red Hat wanted it to be, and that's the way it is.
Every time someone mentions systemd, some random apologist dutifully trots out the idea that systemd-init is small and therefore systemd is not a monolith, checkmate. Of course, journald, libudev, localed, logind, hostnamed, homed, networkd, resolevd, systemd-boot, systemd-bsod, systemd-nspawn, timedated, timesyncd, tmpfiles, udevd, and all of the other array of dumbass bolted-on second-system-effect-driven product-managed nonsense somehow don't get mentioned.
> Red Hat and Poettering wanted systemd in order to control more of the platform
Speculative and ideological. From a technical perspective, I don't care about this.
> despite all this being open source, were forbidden to modify or replicate
This isn't true - you're allowed to modify or replicate any parts of systemd and always have been.
> systemd is, of course,today a continuing shambling feature factory behemoth in which hundreds of product managers try to shoehorn in more mandatory features in order to cement grip on the platform
I'm not sure you understand what systemd is.
systemd is not a piece of software, systemd is an endeavor. Many, many projects are under "systemd", as in they have the name, but they are all individual binaries. Practically 0 distros include all systemd binaries, because they're optional. Many projects already existed before systemd, like gummi boot, and were just given the name.
> The rest of Unix, by comparison, is generally not that way
This is untrue, as systemd follows unix principles. systemd-init does one thing and one thing only - it's only the init system. systemd-networkd is just the network daemon. systemd-journald is just the logger. And on and on. Despite what you may think, they ARE optional, and distros mix and match constantly.
> without cramming a bunch of cruft and poor decisions into pid 1
Again, out of the dozens and dozens of binaries under the systemd umbrella, only one (1) runs under PID 1. This simply isn't true.
> Systemd is designed to try to be the ultimate mandatory dependency for essentially everything on the system. That's the way Red Hat wanted it to be, and that's the way it is
Speculation, ideological, and not evidence backed.
> Of course, journald, libudev, localed, logind, hostnamed, homed, networkd, resolevd, systemd-boot, systemd-bsod, systemd-nspawn, timedated, timesyncd, tmpfiles, udevd, and all of the other array of dumbass bolted-on second-system-effect-driven product-managed nonsense somehow don't get mentioned
Yeah... because those are separate programs. Maybe you just don't understand how computers work, but these programs are unrelated. They talk over IPC, they're not even linked together on any systems. You can take or leave any of them, and many distros do. Even Debian, the supposed systemd cocksucker, doesn't include half of these.
A relatively generous interpretation is that they want to keep down the price of the entry model. They make their own silicon now, only three different sizes so it's not viable to differentiate on compute power. The easy way out is to put too little storage and memory in the base model and make customers pay through the nose for more storage and memory.
I agree that keeping pets is probably immoral. But even if we accept that, there are multiple problems.
- There may not be much of a "wild" left to release animals into.
- Some animals have been bred for hundreds of generations and are now dependent on humans.
- Who has the right to speak for these animals? How do they divine what their client wants? It's not reasonable that any person on the street can bring a motion of habeas corpus on behalf of your dog.
Watching the foxes and squirrels that live near humans has suggested to me that domestication is two-way. The animals want what we have: spare food, shelter. Some of them are brave and willing enough to interact with us, some aren’t. Over time, more of them become brave and willing enough to interact.
Anyone that considers a cat their pet will observe that cats are mainly in it for themselves. They (try to) go out when they want, they’ll make it clear when they’re not in the mood for attention. They spend hours each day ignoring us whilst making use of the shelter we provide. They’ve been known to leave their humans and return to their familiar territories when their humans move house.
I don’t think pet “ownership” is inherently immoral, but some people’s implementations of it, and the terminology, probably are.
That’s true, but this repo has thousands of bugs. They could at least find one that was in the training set, but also did not contain the location in the bug description.
every hype cycle runs through a predictable course.
we are at a phase where the early adopters have seen the writing on the wall.. ie that llms are useful for a limited set of usecases. but there are lots of late adopters who are still awestruck and not disillusioned yet.
I appreciate state TV content and watch it regularly. But this argument just doesn't hold water. The service is so wonderful that they had to make it a criminal offence not to be a subscriber? And surely an "independent" TV station would have to be one which is not completely controlled by the state.
It's only an offense if you watch live TV [1]. They could have just lumped it in with your taxes, like they do in many other countries with state TV, but this approach in theory lets you opt out, even if they like to check up on you all too regularly. I suppose one downside of the BBC approach is tax is usually proportional to your income, while the TV license fee is not, and in fact you need to pay it even if you have no income. We had great games of hiding our TV in the closet as students whenever the license people came down the street.
They have zero power, it's just a man with a clipboard asking to have a look around your house, the correct response is to shut the door in their face.
They rely on a uniform and vague threatening language to trick people into thinking they have any authority.
Not a UK citizen, but from previous discussions on the topic:
> There are people going door-to-door to check TV licenses?
yes
> Are they cops?
no
> what kind of power do they have?
none. I mean write you a fine if you admit to illegally watching TV I guess. But as far as I've been told you can have the TV on and visible to the guy and go "nah that's an aquarium" and be fine.
The BBC has never offered any proof or explanation of how they worked, and there is some suspicion that they are fakes used for their psychological effect.
Pretty much the same as using Cable TV or Satellite TV without paying for a subscription. I don't see much difference between paying the BBC and paying Comcast.
In the case of Satellite TV, in the 1990s there were companies that sold decoder boxes so you could use a dish antenna without paying the Satellite TV company. You'd pay the pirating company instead. Lots of cat-and-mouse games involving changing encryption methods.
The bbc has been in a state of cost cutting as the Tory government of past 15 years has consistently throttled the licence fee as “punishment” for not being state controlled enough (ie Tory’s feel the BBC is biased against them
This is unlikely - partly any news media is biased against government as they do the actual decisions, but mostly the BBC is middle class britain incarnate, whereas the tories represent - well whatever the right wing is becoming these days.
As for licence fee - it’s basically a historical accident that became a ring fenced tax. Governments have strong views about people not paying taxes.
It sounds like all old bindings to the value stay the same. So you have a "cell" inside which a reference is stored. You can replace the reference but not mutate the values being referred to.
Genericity is not really the issue as I see it. The basic K&R macro using ?: is fully generic. The problem is that C has implicit conversion between essentially any numeric types. The main point of the kernel macro was to prevent such conversions.
I think implicit type conversion is a mistake, perhaps one of the few true design flaws in C. Languages like haskell and rust went with explicit conversions which is probably a better idea overall, even if it does increase the code verbosity a bit. C++ instead doubled down and added many more ways for implicit conversions to happen.
