I’m not sure who regards RedHat well actually, they’ve always been doing shitty things like trying to charge for Fedora hence why people ended up forking it as CentOS. They’re a poster child for the problems with Linux getting commercialized. Saying Linus uses something is just appeal to authority by the way.

The problem, once again, is that a lot of the development is now driven by commercial companies like RedHat and Ubuntu that are in it to make money. So, in a way these things are actually pushed on the community because you either adopt them or it becomes increasingly difficult to run software on your distro.

Fragmentation in init was a real problem, but it could’ve been solved much better by just creating a common standard for configurations while keeping the original modular design. Systemd approach is very heavy handed, and introduces a whole bunch of new problems which didn’t exist. The fundamental Unix principle is having small programs that do a single thing well and that can be composed together. Systemd goes directly against this principle.

don’t think so

Fly wheels are pretty cool too, it could be that this is just easier to build and maintain though. I imagine the primary considerations are around how cheap it is to produce and whether it holds enough energy to make it worthwhile.

But you do that once, and the thing lasts 35 years, somehow I can’t imagine environmental impact would be worse than mining and refining rare earths for regular batteries here.

that would be my intuition as well

as I recall it does actively randomize machine-id?

Yeah, since OpenBSD doesn’t use systemd, that points to dbus origins for the file.

I would guess it’s because it’s likely very low cost and easy to build, but there are obvious environmental savings that fall out of it naturally.

Arguably, the fluke was Germans shitting the bed and failing to have a communist revolution. If Germany went communist instead of fascist in 1930s, then the rest of Europe would’ve almost certainly followed. The US had a strong isolationist movement at the time, so it likely would’ve remained a regional power. There was also a strong communist and union movement as a result of the great depression, and with Europe being communist, it would’ve had a huge amount of international support. So, we basically live in one of the worst possible timelines thanks to the Germans.

the article says it’s recycled though…

The whole context here is that Linux philosophy and principles are being gutted by companies trying to make a buck off it. In my view, benefits of wide adoption need to be balanced with actually retaining the principles which make Linux a good platform.

Again, Linux has been around a long time before commercial interests started fucking with it. And I don’t think chasing adoption for the sake of it is healthy. I’d rather it grows at its own pace. It’s already a big enough community to make it sustainable indefinitely, there’s absolutely no rush to gain market share here.

right, it only makes sense if you do it at large scale

Again, they state over 80% efficiency in the article. So, that’s your answer.

looks like it was a skills issue

It doesn’t say anything about any sinister reasons actually. It simply states the fact that there is a systematic effort by the ruling class to extract more profit from the working majority.

I’m not sure what was supposed to be leaving ground in your mind to be honest, or whose strategy you’re talking about. Linux used to be a community driven effort rather than some company trying to gain growth. Why is gaining adoption so important all of a sudden when Linux has been around for ages without mass adoption, and it’s been doing just fine. Seems like part of the issue is actually commercialization because a lot of the decisions are driven by distros that are backed by companies who do want to make profit off the platform.

Yeah excellent point.

Pretty much…

I mean, it’s not like concrete is scraping on the walls going up and down, it’s on a pulley system which would be efficient in terms of doing energy transfer. The article mentions round-trip efficiency above 80 percent, so I’m not sure pumping water could be much more efficient than that.