You means as good as PulseAudio or else?

How come in 2020 we think it is a good thing to move around data with an USB key, especially something implies users privileges etc, in the age of cloud computing and single sign on?
 

Many old games, with some effort, are still playable with a few hacks - not cracks. No matter if there was some basic copyright protection system that works as of today as yesterday, maybe we have few hack - we are not talking cracking anything, we talk about the ability to use what you acquired legally.
The problem with DRM is not that it prevents you to use what you got illegally -that's kind of its purpose and that's another topic- but when it prevents you to use what you got legally, which is a massive issue for everyone to admit.

It is obvious since a while that one of the easiest and more reliable way to do DRM is to force online login. That will clearly be a massive issue over time.

How the Witcher 3 is a bad example of a game you can hope to be able to play in 20 years? (and... hum, yeah, that was not random that it is tied to GOG) I think you agree that it is.

I think we more or less agree, even if your sentences start off.

The point is not their legal status.

Many old games, with some effort, are still playable with a few hacks - not cracks.

It is doubtful that many currents games will still playable in 20 years, no matter if you got license rights.

That is a good reason to buy game on GOG. It is, in general, a way to help make sure that if game become unplayable, it'll mostly be due to technical issues pertaining to the game itself, not a stuck digital right management system. You can hope to be able to play the Witcher 3 in 20 years.

Funny, since we are doing benchmarks on the fly.

Two runs:
real 0m4,547s
real 0m4,505s

Not even the latest Firefox. Addons included. Not even SSD (well, some hybrid drive). And aging AMD FX-6300.

Somehow I really wonder what do you do to get Firefox to start in 24 seconds. Ask Intel for a refund. Or ask the NSA/FSB to unhook your rig!

As said in another comment, the question is not really for still under warranty devices.

Reasons Apple might have are no concerns to the customers. Even worse with Cars? Cars company have already been fined for pulling this kind of crap (Renault Scenic with headlights bulbs that could not be changed without removing front shields of the vehicule, etc). It is surely going towards this. But that does not make it right.

Now you mention "specific" tools. You mean "non standard". I think we know enough the benefits of using standards and the reason some people avoid standards, it is common issue in computer related business. Not making it right too.

If I'm buying a Rolls Royce, I clearly think I paid enough to have the right to full ownership of the vehicule. Including specs and required info to fix it.

Years (decades) ago, if I remember well, there was in some RedHat install some comparative speech about how cars would be if they were proprietary software: no possibility to open the hood and check the engine bay. Are you suggesting that it should be that way? What about ... freedom?

The question is not why would someone want to fix things by himself or by a shop he trust but why do you want to prevent people from able to do so.

If you bought a Rolls Royces Wraith, for the price you paid, dont you at least deserve to get the specs and required information to fix it, if perchance you'd like to? Should not that be a basic rule of business and acquisition?

You are calling bullshit on a thread dedicated to God mode. Are you even reading before posting?

Note that running KDE or PulseAudio without systemd God daemon is not supported.

Starting point would be to ackowledge crimes figures in the USA and admit a police officer is more likely to kill a young black person carrying a weapon in a high crime rate area refusing to follow an order than a white grandma sipping a tea at home or a white male sitting on his ass posting anonymous comments on internet.

Swift justice thanks to "anonymous coward"!

So Justice is racist in america, that's is a fact, he?

Good that you are nice and comfy behind your internet access, not really risking your life in any way: that is probably how someone can deliver such a swift "justice".

"Also wrong. Not a single piece of major software doesn't work on non-systemd systems."

Last time I checked, upower (working without functionalities is not working). upower is not major. But KDE power management is (was ?) done by upower. So power management in KDE does not, at least without workarounds. An example among others. I wont make a catalog, just to point out that your argument is kind of flawed.
(when you write "That's the problem with nasty hacks to try and make a system look like it's in control. When the system actually gets control the hacks become useless" I am under the impression you are clueless about the topic)

"Starting a system and letting it be is 80s era OS design. Continual system management is what it's about. systemd is NOT an init system, it's a system management daemon, it's right there in the name."

You cannot claim systemd is not an init and yet say that people should not complain because it is just a change of init.

I was fine with the notion of an init system. I am not interested in this continual system management why I managed to find broke in my uses cases already a few time.

"You're not allowed to shit on someone who doesn't realise one single thing while at the same time writing large parts of the fundamental parts of an OS"

Reality check: I am. Fact is I liked this OS better before he touched it. Fact is I am using now distros that does not contains the changes he made. But dont make it personal. It is not about one person.
And I am perfectly untitled not to trust someone that find "rm -f /foot/." is not a problem. Because that was the point you apparently missed, the problem is not that they guy is clueless about it but the fact that, because he was clueless about it, he decided we should not care.
Well, it seems I rarely share view with this guys about what matters. So I can only welcome people doing something else, like Devuan does.

systemd was adopted on technical merits? Probably. Do these technicals merits affects me? I tried and used systemd before any distribution adopted it. Then I noticed it broke stuff I relied on and wanted to switch back to another init, because why not, eh? And then I found out people around (like KDE, like provided earlier) remove code and functionalities of software because it would make a duplicate with systemd. So switching back was no longer an easy option.

And many of these functionalities are way beyond the scope of an init system. It is almost a system. So that, for me, itself, raise quertions.

The rm -rf /foo/. might be insignificant if we were talking about a guy that contributes to an init system. It is quite different when it is about one of the guy that have a say on the system that gradually all other software depends on.
As you said "underpinnings of a large part of the OS". It is not about an init anymore.

Fact that a new init system is welcome does not mean that it is so great to have a new system on top of GNU/Linux, much more than an actual init system.

When considerable amount of software regress (upower, etc) because their functionalities are now handled by systemd, in an effort of rationalization, for distros, it does not make much sense not to use systemd, because it forces them to chase all these regressions that are being made day after day. Which mean working just to keep things as they were, instead of improving anything.

And it is not like a new thing in the libre software community, to write a blank check to some crowd (Helixcode, Eazel, etc) due to marketing and promises more than results while there was obvious warning sign to where it would, in the end, lead (and which it did - kind of joke to have GNOME, part of GNU, led by people that ultimately were releasing proprietary software).

I wont get in details about sound. In the past, it was shitty to set up but once it was set, it was working reliably. Not my feeling right now. At least, old audio system was not providing functionalities while advising not to use them (PulseAudio as a system daemon). Here there is a pattern about the development process (writing code you want people not to use? why? because you need to pretend there is no regression?).

Finally, what is the meaning of your last sentence? Is it not allowed not to enjoy systemd until you wrote yourself some systemd? I need to be president of the USA to have an opinion about president USA ? I need to be famous singer to like or not to like some famous song? WTF.

Funny, there is just before another anonymous comment, reply to Bruce Perens, that seems to think the choice of Devuan is about being a member of a community.

Cannot it be about picking a set of software?

Read carefully "On a mildly related note, of feature creep". It does not mean "on a ultimately related note, about systemd".

Ahem, but isn't it the same argument we hear about systemd: if all distros use it, so it must be good?

Funny thing, when you do not use it, things no longer work. Things that worked for decades. Because the code that was there before was removed (remember David Edmundson from KDE, concluded that "In many cases [systemd] allows us to throw away large amounts of code whilst at the same time providing a better user experience https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinux.slashdot.org%2Fsto... ).

So, from a distro perspective, not using it mean doing the extra work to make things work as they did before. Work to get nothing more than what was before. Work for nothing, in short. Who wants to afford that? Because it is not meant as an alternative but a replacement for all.

Now, does that benefits to the end user? Well, as long as the replacement suits your needs, no problem. When it breaks, that is another story.
And, then, how the Poettering and his gang manage things is quite important. When Poettering write "I am not sure I'd consider this much of a problem. Yeah, it's a UNIX pitfall, but "rm -rf /foo/.*" will work the exact same way, no?", not only it shows lack of knowledge (annoying considering how much his decisions can affect GNU/Linux main distros), it shows lack of concern about other people priority.
And, here, we can laugh about it because he is so obviously wrong (as shown in the comments, tests about rm -rf /foo/.* and rm -rf /). But what when it is not an issue with such an obvious answer? Well... Guess.