From: NoEMail@home.org   
      
   Chris Elvidge  wrote:   
   >>   
   >   
   > Why not 'sudo -i' ?   
   >   
   I know I got a slap on the wrist for even talking about   
   systemd in this news group, but it is really something   
   that should be thought about. Unix divided patrons   
   into ordinary and root. Systemd has four levels.   
   Unlike Unix, root cannot do many functions under   
   systemd, which has levels of ordinary, root, snap,   
   and systemctl. At least some of the config files   
   of systemd are not human readable, but can be   
   made so using snap commands, though I found changing   
   those config files did not change function, that   
   was dictated by the systemctl level.   
      
   Why do I think it important to think about this?   
   Is software that we use the same as electronics   
   we us that is encased in plastic that we cannot   
   pentrate even to make a simple capacitor replacement?   
   Modern displays often fail and are replaced   
   when a simple replacement if a string of leds   
   would fix the display. They could have made   
   that replacement as simple as replacing a refrigerator   
   bulb.   
      
   Is it right for a company to sell a device with   
   only secure boot and no option for legacy boot?   
   who owns the thing after paying for it?   
      
   Why has systemd taken control to the extent that   
   (perhaps) only Slackware remains true to the   
   Unix ideal?   
      
   I think the answer is Microsoft influence making linux   
   as impenetrable as windows.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)