Yeah, and as “ideals” go, an OS design philosophy is a bad hill to die on. Just take the process supervision and go.

Problem is, nobody’s alternative solves all of the problems people wanted their init system to solve. sysvinit didn’t solve booting/service supervision well, so it’s hard to say it was really a UNIX philosophy solution, and it wasn’t even part of the OG Unix system but came over a decade later in 1981 with AT&T’s system iii (later included in system v, hence the name sysvinit). There’s nothing sysvinit does well. The most popular services and distributions had simply thrown away so many hours of time and effort bashing their heads against sysvinit’s limitations that they had managed to make them work, but that’s different from the system overall working well.

Anyways, people don’t like Poettering, but he made inroads with systemd in large part because he actively took notes on what people wanted, and then delivered. He’s an unlikable prick, but he delivered a product it was hard for many projects to say no to. That’s why project after project adopted it. It solved problems that needed solving. This counts for more than adherence to an archaic design philosophy from the 70’s most people don’t follow anyways and which the predecessor wasn’t even a good exemplar of anyways.

init.d wasn’t really what you’d call an “init” “system.” It was shell + conventions about how to write shell scripts to manage each service. It effectively offloaded most of the work people wanted an init system/service supervisor to do onto developers that just needed to ship a system service. To be honest, it was insane. Templates/patterns/best practices emerged, but at the end of the day, init.d was just shell, and it caused tons of problems.

The extra complexity of systemd is in exchange for dependency management, service supervision, tons of things that are important/desirable for sysadmins/developers today, but are all far outside the scope of init. I’d much rather cope with the extra complexity of systemd in exchange for being able to write an actual service definition file.

Libraries. If you had to write everything from scratch, nothing would ever get done. You pick a UI library/framework that meets your needs and is supported in the language you’re using, and go from there.

You can use a Web interface, it’s absolutely hideous but it gets the job done. I hear QT is pretty easy to develop for and it’s cross-platform.

Sorry, what does “certain minimum income” mean in your native language?

IDK, he seemed pretty clear when he said that “the assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he [sic] is unable to take care of himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a common risk to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.”

How else are you supposed to stabilize a highly-developed postindustrial economy with increasingly rare opportunities to get ahead for most of the population? Didn’t you people read your Friedrich Hayek?

More like, if enough states make this decision that it threatens his ability to finish the primary, is when things will get interesting. I suspect we’re going to have a dark horse candidate from the R side before this is all over. My current guess is that DeSantis will unsuspend his campaign after Trump unceremoniously sinks under the weight of his legal cases and the Trump base seamlessly switches to New Trump because his politics are close enough and he carefully avoided getting into fights with Trump, so he has no baggage for that sector.

Any Republican that would have been interested in a centrist governance framework has been run out by this point.

deleted by creator

The DNC is not the state parties…

The state parties exist independent of the DNC, but due to how funding is supposed to trickle down, the state parties do kind of have to listen to them.

Right, they’re formally separate, I know. The DNC intentionally uses their version of the power of the purse to control state parties. Like you said. They don’t need perfect control as long as they can starve any campaign they don’t like of funding.

The DNC has the state infrastructure and most federal and state-level campaigns tied so deeply into their infrastructure there’s no real hope of replacing them.

Local politics are a tiny bit more open-ended, but again, the stakes are lower and local governments are explicity subordinate to states. Cities and counties can’t do much if the state doesn’t like it.

I have no idea how you fix this situation up, but as I see it, whatever the solution is has to look like making the DNC and its infrastructure obsolete. I don’t see this happening inside the Democratic Party.

deleted by creator

Everyone forgets that in the decades before the Civil War everyone saw it coming and the most unionists could bring themselves to do was look for compromises the South didn’t want until there was actual shooting and entire blocs of states leaving the Union. They’re so terrified of fighting white supremacist revanchism they’d rather negotiate with it until we’re back in the middle of another Civil War.

Right, exactly. Sure, the Dems have a bunch of formal structure, and yes, you can participate in it, and if you persuade the decision makers inside the party (who are industry tools more often than not), then yes, you can have an influence. But if you want to challenge them on something genuinely democratic, like calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, which 76% of the Democratic base is in support of, then all of a sudden the elitist liberalism comes out and we all have to get in line behind our august statespeople, who know infinitely better than us measly citizens…

Those are who the Democratic Party represents. They are the party. If you want to pay membership dues and show up to local meetings, that’s fun and all, but the donors and senior members make all the important decisions above the local level, and local power brokers generally have party locals all sewn up, too.

Now, if the Democrats had picked someone who actually supported popular Democratic positions, there wouldn’t now be a massive chasm between him and their base on various burning issues they now have to bridge during what may, ironically, in fact be one of the more important elections of our lifetimes.

If you’re like most developers, cognitive dissonance? https://www.gitclear.com/coding_on_copilot_data_shows_ais_downward_pressure_on_code_quality>

My favorite are the gigantic companies falling all over themselves to buy this for their workforces before it’s even clear what value a bot that can’t reliably do arithmetic is going to add to Excel

Eh, there are limits. Utah has a pile of petty claims against the federal government including delusionally contesting ownership of federal lands. There’s a difference between having a narrow policy limiting the degree of law enforcement cooperation on one or two matters, and Utah passing a law that says “if we disagree with the feds on literally anything we can refuse to cooperate with them any time we feel like.” One is a matter of policy and discretion, the other actively flaunts federal supremacy. Utah doesn’t just get to decide it owns the national parks inside its state borders and order its employees to treat National Parks Service workers as trespassers, but it sure seems like this law is carefully crafted to create situations like that.

This is also hot on the heels of Utah also passing another bill that flaunts federal policy as regards separation of church and state. They really want to pretend they never joined the Union or like there’s never been a conflict between states and the federal government before and like this is somehow new territory.

Like the lawyer in the article said, this is what we’d call a whacko interpretation of how the Supremacy Clause works and is likely meant to appeal to the voters more than anything else.