The most I can say about this talk is: I am unimpressed.
Benno Rice glosses over the details that are necessary to really drive his point home. And the primary reason for a person to do this is if those details may not be strong enough to support the argument. He does this repeatedly throughout the talk, skipping back and forth once he reaches a weak point.
He mentions that Systemd does certain things well. But again, he glosses right over how it does or whether it performs viably well. Instead, he challenges others to write new code and do it better. This rather defensive posturing is a Red Herring. It also moves the responsibility away from the developer and onto the user.
His entire argument can be summarized simply to:
"Change is coming and we have to accept that."
This is a very weak position to defend. Most importantly because change must be tested for merit, not just blindly accepted simply because with argumentum ad authoritum; someone declares it to be. And change is not always good. Change can be good or it can be bad. It must be carefully examined and weighed; the details poked and prodded. Not just accepted; by fallacy or by apathy.
He mentions that the evidence in favor of SystemD is that it works. On the surface, this seems fine; yet it neglects the many other init systems that "also just work" and are simpler in design, do not include extraneous code and most importantly; Are not bulky and heavily integrated.
And once you look at that other side, his entire long commentary about Systemd just 'working' pales by a dozen different shades. Which brings us back to why the glossing over and subject changing.
His entire argument about containerization does not need to be summed up. He did that himself by covering it with only one sentence through the entire lecture. According to Benno Rice in his own words, containers deserve respect and support "because they are cool."
That was all he had to say.
He tried to passively aggressively excuse Lennart Poetterings atrocious vitriol to the end user by stating that Poettering should never have received death threats.
This is true. Poettering should never have received death threats.
And two wrongs do not make a right.
Abusive vitriol from some sick individual out there does not validate Poetterings incessant vitriol directed toward innocent by-standers, end users and anyone else he flings his wrath at at the drop of a hat (red or otherwise).
Then i am still confuse. Some ppl accept systemd another sysvinit.
Then if I would like start Zorin from lfs then i can used something diffrent like sysvinit because i can seeing the diffrents.
I have installed and used Sysvinit on Zorin OS 15 and used it without any problems before.
It has been a while, though and I do not remember all the important steps. I had followed two different guides at the time.
Aravisian was able to do it because he prefers xfce (Lite) to Gnome (Core). You cannot use SysVinit with GNU/Linux using the Gnome DE - I checked, which is why I use Devuan.
If ever GNU/Linux ended up as 'Lennart Linux' then it would just be a case of moving to BSD!
Gnomes integration with LoginD?
Gnome for me when I looking them looking for me like a fat.
I don't know how to explain that. Something like a many buttons something like a cockpit pilot's station or could use stronger words like a woman after plastic surgery with botox and silicone.
Besides i checked gnome and xfce.
XFCE is king with response open,close windows faster.
Everything is faster in xfce for me but not on GNome that is my opinion.
If I would choice then stable and fast not some fatty boy gnome.
This is just my experience using both gnome and xfce.
I searched on internet, can't remember the link but it stated it was not possible in respect of Gnome DE
Why do people use Linux for their desktops when they need to use Windows for some tasks, and Windows can do everything Linux can do?
The problem with many questions about computer technology lies in a hidden premise. The hidden premise is the suggestion that a single person or group of people can write code, discover an algorithm or formulate a theory of anything that will be the single best of all other options.
People are looking for proof and confirmation that one technology is better than another.
The truth is that humans come from nature, and therefore everything that humans create indirectly comes from nature itself. You can't look into the forest and say that one type of tree is better than another. Nor can we say that one type of car is best in all situations. The car used in competitive racing is not necessarily the same car you need to commute to work.
That's why people may want to say Apple is the best, Linux is the best or Windows is the best. These programs have more than a decade of history. Now we know that they all have similar flaws and similar features.
Almost never in the history of mankind have all the people around the world used exactly the same brand of tools. Some liked chisels made in ancient Rome, others chisels from Athens, while still others sought special chisels from Cairo, considered especially blessed.
Linux versus Windows is the same theory of absolute quality, but expressed in terms of computer operating systems used to make parts of our lives easier.
The bad news is the day when all people in the modern world consolidate into the same operating system and software is the day when freedom in these tools will soon end.
The good news is that because humans are reliably subjective, we can reasonably say that this will probably never happen.
The reality is that if you have a Windows computer and another with Linux and you use one more often than the other, don't worry. You're not a bad person if you use one more often than the other. You should be celebrated for keeping your options open.
People who want to bind you to one choice in the matter do not respect your freedom of choice. Sometimes people push others hard in one direction to justify their own decisions. When it comes to computers, what matters... is what works for you?
Personally, I have 20-40 reasons why I use Linux as my primary operating system for personal use. Most of these reasons are about freedom, flexibility and simplicity .
It works for me. I know many people for whom these reasons are 100% irrelevant.
They look like me, as if I were speaking an alien dialect from the planet Xerox. They immediately turn around and ask , what is the best option to run their Quickbooks, Fortnite, Excel, AutoCAD and do graphic design with Adobe software. I meet them exactly where they are and tell them about Windows or Apple, if either fits.
What's great about this is that through their experiences, I too can retain knowledge (admittedly through anecdote) about other options and where they work optimally.
The last 10 years have been eye-opening. This is what I saw....
Apple Mac - people swear that Apple is the absolute best. I often hear that Apple computers last about 10 years. That's great, but you can't run most video games on them. Working on the web in Quickbooks, where Windows is involved, has been a challenge in the past. If you run out of internal memory space or need more RAM, you can't upgrade the same machine you like. Still, Apple has its audience.
Microsoft Windows - people are fighting to the death, at least philosophically, to establish that Windows is the best. You hear things like: you have more control, programmers and IT can manage more easily, and you have greater compatibility with past computer programs. All of these and other arguments turn out to be either half true or not true at all when other factors are taken into account. However, Windows works for those who like it.
Linux - Linux is compared to the arrival of a new spiritual regime that will transform humanity.
The most money has been made on Linux as far as server companies are concerned. More billions have come from Linux servers than from any other type of software. Google has increased its capital with Android and Chromebook, both of which are derived from Linux. However, Linux doesn't work for everyone as a desktop computer. Despite the expansion of web applications, robust desktop software still reigns , and many of the good ones only run on Windows or Mac.
Your question should be read backwards to reveal its true form. Your real question is: why not just use Windows if you have to use it for certain things anyway? Why bother with two systems?
The answers to these questions are, like the human experience itself, complicated.
THE ANSWERS (scenarios)
- First of all, you want to be able to switch physical hardware without any commitment. Linux allows this. Windows doesn't.
- You want to use this year's standards in computer software on hardware more than 10 years old. Linux allows you to do this with the latest Linux-compatible software. Windows doesn't.
- Linux has a USB bug. Suppose you have a USB 3.0 hub with 3 to 4 USB ports. When you're done with that, you unplug it from your laptop with some versions of Linux. After about 40 to 50 seconds, the mouse will still move, but the entire Linux desktop is suspended and you have to do a hard reset with the power button. Even with this drawback, other advantages of Linux still outweigh the disadvantages of Windows for some people.
- You have to manipulate 1TB worth of files, but your Linux computer has a fraction of the available space, but you happen to have a Windows computer and a much larger hard drive than your Linux computer. You are dual-skilled in Linux and Windows, and decide to manipulate the data on Windows, given the amount of data.
- You intend to distribute some files to some people. You use Linux, but you know they only have Windows. If you also have Windows, it is wise to make sure that the files you intend to share with them can be opened in Windows. Double that if you're creating tutorials, and the screenshots need to be on the operating system they're likely to have on hand.
Teachers of antiquity knew that life is dynamic. Nothing stays the same, and the specific things we create are not themselves eternal. The dynamic interaction of different parts of reality means that one thing that works so well in one situation does not work so well in another.
It is true that Linux is an attempt to get as close as possible to the ideal of a hyper-universal operating system. Linux has the best chance of becoming one thanks to the huge number of human brains from thousands of places on the planet who are putting their time and effort into its evolution. However, at least at the moment, even all of humanity cannot create a single operating system that will meet all needs. Depending on the situation, sometimes different tools are needed, with operating systems being one class of tools.
Good point about human nature. Because we are imperfect (one ear lower/higher than the other, one eye higher/lower than the other) physically, we may also have, due to our 'coding' similar flaws in the mental process. I have stated elsewhere, if you want a secure system, let A.I. produce it - you just wouldn't be granted access!
The untold stories and secret recipes of becoming a kernel debugger, this channel is an attempt to provide deep implementation level information about the Linux kernel using tracing as the main tool. Here is a list of tools and techniques that are extensively used in these videos:
- Linux perf
- Linux ftrace
- Call stack tracing