CrypticCoffee

Does not surprise me in the slightest. The mask for Keir is starting to slip for the public. While they were rightly keen to move on from the previous government, they didn't really kick the tires and see the autocratic nature in which he and his team run the party. For example, suspending thousands of members for years, frequently without stating why, due to them being on the left of the party.

The guy also hired a former Israeli spy to a prominent position.

Point taken. Saves me some clicking!

Great talk on SystemD for those that are interested: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo&pp=2AHFBpACAQ%3D%3D

1. no. Processes have a life cycle other than init. Fire and forget with bash scripts is backwards.

2. I am no expert on this and could not do this answer justice. A quick search will provide a better and more detailed answer. That is if you are willing to consider that SystemD provides benefits. The way you wrote your question gives me vibes that you do not want to, so this debate would be fruitless.

If you're genuinely curious Benno Rice has a great talk on SystemD: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo&pp=2AHFBpACAQ%3D%3D

Lol. You went from Windows user to extreme Arch user in a very short period of time (SystemD hate).

There is Alpine and Void Linux which are commonly known of and used. Plus more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Linux_distributions_without_systemd

Most distros independently decided that SystemD was superior. They had a choice and they chose. Distros are often maintained by volunteers in their free time. Same with software that depends on it. Expecting them to provide poor irrelevant choices is not how open source works. You're passing on your backbreaking work onto other people. If you want another option, you give your time to make it happen.

SystemD is not an init system. It provides that functionality, but processes have more life cycle steps than just initialize.

When you accept that, you realise that you cannot compare them.

SystemD provides functionality that they don't. Of course those that refuse to consider this will just claim it's bloat. To some DE's are bloat.

You must be one of the few that do not believe they should diversify. Most Mozilla haters criticise the fact they are dependent on Google money and therefore not independent. I did not say it was the right thing. I said I do not believe it is, but iI could be wrong. Not sure if you aware about humility.

It is not cognitive dissidence to believe positive and negative things about a company or thing. It's call a balanced decision. It requires nuance, a key component in adult decision making. Usually children struggle with that as something is all great or all bad. Black and white thinking isn't really fit for the adult world.

You are surprised that you are supposed to back up your opinions and bring references to a discussion. This is the first time I have heard of this Steve guy. If you think it's common knowledge, you've probably been stuck too deep in the Mozilla haters echo chamber.

Sounds like you feel positively about Unity and get defensive when it's attacked.

Don't get me wrong, Unity is a solid engine. I used to use it and enjoyed the experience but resent the company and their board who are still sitting pretty. Still not held to account. If it was open source, I'd probably use it, but I simply cannot trust the company to not enshittify again in the future. When they pushed these changes through, they choose to ignore their users. I could not put myself in the situation where I'd be open to getting screwed by them again. Good luck if you are fine with that risk, but you probably should understand those that put months of work into Unity and had it taken from them (myself, fortunately it was only 4 months). I'm pretty angry about it. I resent people stealing 4 months of my life.

Not necessarily. I went with Unreal. It's a great engine and at least you know where you stand with them. I'd love Godot to make both obsolete, but it'll take time to mature to that level.

They do not propose them for the internet, simply opting out of hosting Mastodon. A glorified look at me RSS feed with built in validation (likes). They're not even suggesting they'll move away from posting on it. You probably guessed I never really liked xitter so the alternative is quite meaningless to me. I just want a browser not run by Google.

I do not believe in GenAI and do believe it'll fail. I do not believe I'm guaranteed to be right. Folk seem to like confidently incorrect answers and are hooked on them. Mozilla need to diversify their revenue streams and maybe they get it right. If users expect that integration, and rivals do it, then they will perceive it as rubbish and not use it or move to it, which could be a failure.

I do not know this Steve chap, but I do know devs are asked to work on stuff and if they refuse, they're not doing their job. In that case, you do it, or leave. He got fired and ultimately if he wasn't running it, they even find someone else (was there anyone willing?) or can it. It got canned. No dev really chooses their workload, just how they go about it.

It's less suspicious than you want it to be.

So how does not running a virtual soapbox that is niche and most do not care about affect the public's ability to participate in the internet from where they are?

I'm not sure if you didn't understand the point or are cherry picking words to satiate your feelings?