Looks like JJ can do action scenes but just throws in stuff "to make it interesting"...like a lightsaber cross-guard! Also the intro dialogue? Phantom Menace level bad.
The initial shot is obviously pre-finished. It slowly builds from raw to production level scenes. I have high hopes, but it will have bad parts.
> money is not an issue when transportation of people is the matter.
How do you come to that nonsensical conclusion?
http://calwatchdog.com/2012/07..., I think we all remember the bridges to nowhere 10 years back, etc.
> The day RH choices disturb any big company from their own ecosystem, they will be eaten alive.
If RH never made another release, there would be similar disruption.
That doom theorycrafting is irrelevant to my question.
> RH *is* a business, Debian is a community effort
That's also irrelevant. They are distros from a business standpoint. CentOS being interchangeable with Fedora since forever. How they came to be is a footnote.
My question was about relative usage and some way to measure that metric other than guesswork, as a challenge to the assertion that RH is "a marginal player". systemd adoption in RH is mentioned in 100% of the "discussions" on the topic. So someone here is showing bias.
If you were going to address the issue in an objective manner, you might note Debian, tends to identify itself when you run fingerprinting on servers (e.g. Apache and Nginx). Debian tends to be the most common identifier! Nobody believes the bulk of the responses (with no OS identifiers) are all non-RH (some will be slack, some debian, some gentoo, whatever), so that's an interesting metric that isn't definitive.
I think I understood completely. Attempting to derail into some form of "RH can be replaced" discussion, is of no interest to me.
This discussion didn't seem to pan out any better than previous attempts to verify that there is a more prolific distro.
Calling RH a marginal player is simply disingenuous, as of today.
I see:
https://www.debian.org/devel/j...
https://nm.debian.org/public/s...
I guess it can take years with sponsorship. That's a pretty hefty bar. I do think it's a little biased toward inactives, but that's common for this kind of system and I certainly don't think it changes the characterization of why Joey is out.
> You know only Debian developers are allowed to vote, right?
Anyone can become one.
> I'm a FreeBSD/OpenBSD user, some of the development of Nginx was done in FreeBSD, and you don't even see packages for it in your list. See the flaw in your methodology?
No, I don't. Reduced earnings isn't an indicator of reduced use. Poor Debian at 0!
EC2 alone guarantees Debian installations are vastly outnumbered, unless you can show me some data to the contrary.
There are some marketplace images for server setups that are specifically Debian.
I mean give me something, anything to point to, not just "red hat isn't making enough money".
> And then, Red Hat, 1.5B
> So yes, there's evidence that Red Hat is a small fish in the pool.
And Debian is 0. I'm not convinced this is a useful metric.
I know this is off topic but...
> When RH (which is, both in business model and revenue, a small player in the IT panorama)
I continue to hear this and see absolutely no evidence of it. I see evidence to the contrary, in the US, India and Europe, over the last 20 years.
Generally, it's RPM/RH that is first listed. It's not alphabetical. This isn't because they are lucky. The simple explanation is that RH is the most frequently used and therefore put at the top as a simple matter of UI layout (most common choices go to the top of a list, within reason).
Let's just pull some random packages out of the web -
RH nearest top:
http://www.aerospike.com/downl...
http://dev.nuodb.com/download-...
http://wiki.nginx.org/Install
http://cassandra.apache.org/do... (rpm mentioned before deb)
Debian nearest top:
http://dev.mysql.com/downloads...
This is a fun game, pick me a list that shows more Debian love!
I would like to keep a pulse on things but I just don't see this assertion (that RH is the marginal market) bearing out as anything but wishful thinking.
> So in other words the massive egos are butthurt that in a FOSS environment the USERS get a say in things?
I think that's an unfair characterization.
Any USER can join the technical committee. How is it constructive to have a TC vote bypassed on an issue on the basis of a TC member similarly rejecting the process, as a method to bypass an unfavorable outcome? The toxicity is not the community, it's the process. Once set (by the constitution), it has been effectively unalterable. I do not DISAGREE with this process, I simply recognize the unfairness of it all, from his point of view.
Those "egos" are the egos of people who are part of the technical committee. As Joey asks, why even have one now? Well, because it's taken time to get to this point and it just happened to be close to a release. He thinks technical decisions should be limited to the TC and anything related to those decisions (like the following practices) should also be from the TC. It's not just about this one incident, it's about a consistent waste of time in the TC that he worked to be a part of. He doesn't want to be a USER level contributor either, so he's walking. It's just altogether unfortunate that the community no longer fits his tastes and it's not uncommon for people to leave commercial jobs under the same circumstances.
> I disagree strongly about this being an "implementation detail",
I'm not making an argument against or for any position within the Debian groups. I was trying to understand and articulate the context (I'm wrong a lot). I'll submit that my personal opinion (being a non-Debian user since 2000) does not matter. I'm speaking about Joey Hess' position. If a distro uses systemd or not will be 1 factor in my decision making regarding what distros I choose to use. JH is not taking a stand about the Debian direction (evidenced by the process). He's abandoning Debian's current heading rather than trying to "right" the ship, toward what he thinks is proper.
Based on what I've read....
His departure has to do with the interruptions to the release cycle by introducing arguments about technical minutia in sub-projects as requiring a GR vote to decide. Technical arguments being decided by the ignorant masses, versus the specific groups (which anyone from the GR can join) who have the specific job of making those decisions. At least that's one way to look at it.
This is not the first time and probably will not be the last that Debian technical decisions will be handed up to the popular vote, completely subverting the whole specialized delineation of teams within Debian. GR votes are being taken (again) for the specific purpose of avoiding losing a technical argument by appealing to a larger group, which also impacts the Debian release cycle. Normally, such votes would be delayed in the interest of the distro, but this is allowed by the Debian constitution. I would believe, such an act (appealing to the GR) was supposed to be limited to hotly debated and controversial topics (like systemd) but not implementation details (which is what is happening)...much less so close to the release date.
He is stating that he expects it to continue. He's not interesting in taking up this fight as a call to amend the constitution. He obviously feels alone in calling out that it's counterproductive to argue over details so close to a release. He's just done with a community that cares about who wins arguments or following strict process procedures rather than respectfully, making deadlines that users and commercial interests depend on (or at least use as an indicator of a stable project).
> "deep in the operating system"... yeah, right.
DLLs in the system32 folder (why system32, am I one of 32 people being spied on?!?!) are seen as precisely that by the majority of people. So yeah, probably.
> Asimov's essay, which is well worth reading in its entirety:
No, it isn't. John Cleese's thoughts on the matter are much more thoughtful and thought provoking. He's had a lifetime to consider it. Although he didn't make much progress, it was more than Asimov.
> we'd need to be consuming millions of times more energy in order to match what's currently being captured by our CO2 emissions
With backpack reactors, we'd have that. Our CO2 production would dwindle (fossil fuels are so 2015) and now everyone has a personal energy generator AND one in their car and their house, maybe one for the garage, etc.
> Energy: I don't see any evidence that it's energy limiting population growth:
Energy is always the limiting factor in a population. For most creatures, this is in the form of limited food sources, but for humanity it's about distribution, expressed by socioeconomics. I believe the population decline is combination of things. As modern humans have a rising standard of living (thanks to better information dissemination and distribution methods), they are increasingly reluctant to split resources with offspring, as it's a competitive disadvantage and the educated humans recognize it (children at half the fun or my high end lifestyle at 100% fun like those people I see on TV). The humans that are multiplying the fastest are generally not far above the poverty level and those beneath are pragmatically unable to afford it. So I totally agree on the basic premise. It's possible that humanity has had a unique response that mirrors the "beautiful ones" of the John Calhoun's utopian mouse experiments leading to this sub-replacement fertility effect. For the most part, we're capable of keeping our standard of living above barbaric levels, so some people just preen themselves in their niche. These are just casual beliefs from a white male, of course.
Back to energy theorycrafting....if I could generate useful energy (potential to kinetic) at will, I can move any resource anywhere. Price of milk and fuel would dwindle to nothing. It would wreck all types of havoc, economically. I can ignore friction and timescales by laterally scaling production, limited by the ability to automate with...power. Water in death valley, no problem? Let's just pump a river over there from our thousands of desalinization plants that we can setup with pocket generators. Waste production would require Mr Fusion style solutions.
> And assuming your ship, robots, corpsicles, reactor, etc,etc,etc can survive inert for thousands of years, why would you assume solar panels and capacitors would not?
Poor corpsicles. Currently, our energy storages are quite fragile, that I know about. At high velocity, almost any dust from say, a long dead rogue planetoid or comet, would shred most terrestrial materials in transit. I guess wrapping it all up in a tungsten steel alloy ball or rock (like an asteroid) wold work if we could get it to open after being frozen solid and semi-thawed in a couple thousand years, but your (whatever)engine that started up the transit will probably be non-functional. This is why I mentioned the nebulous "Durable" energy storages. You'll have to have the ship float around a start for awhile to store up enough for a landing routine or have an internal generator. Maybe a trick using fissionable material that brings 2 chemicals together after a 5k year halflife would suffice for restart. As long as the rest of the internals were properly shielded and I don't know how feasible that is as it would take a LOT of energy to move an asteroid at any reasonable velocity. I've never heard of aneutronic fusion so I'll have to look into that. It may change my thinking.
I may be wrong on a number of assumptions, but limitations are what I imagine based on my experiences. I'm no space geek, but I do watch a lot of TV and remember a time before the first space shuttle.
I'm not trying to be overly negative here as you have a number of viewpoints that I agree with, but I don't agree with some particulars. Please take this all with a scifi heaping of salt.
> you can only destroy one biome at a time
Terraforming (badly) as we will at the start, I think it's well within the realm of possibility that humanity will be able to wreck a few at a time.
> We appear to be on the cusp of unlocking fusion,
A lot of your views stem from energy availability whereas I come from an energy scarcity standpoint. Even with pocket reactors, the human population will grow to consume a limiting resource (like fissile material), wasting most of the output trying to figure out how to best exploit it. Imagine the ignored terrors of a world without energy constraints (forget global warming, how about global heating of the planet from waste heat!, thx Niven). I just don't believe in virtually costless energy generation. That being said, I would like to see the Loch Ness Monster if it turned out to be a reality.
> Durable energy storage? Why?
Primarily to power the robots/terraformers of the future as they traverse the vastness of space. Even fusion energy is going to run out or flat out eat through containment in interstellar marathon, so you'll need something to wake up after a long hibernation with a small nuclear jump start. It's the only workable strategy I would even consider, for a 5k year journey and THEN it needs to do real work that will cost...more energy (simple to fabricate clause was to ensure the robot will be more likely to self-repair or multiply). Collectors will continue to get better, but only marginally so it's about material science and efficiency. Even if we populate the solar system with robotic helpers, we'll generally want them to exhibit the same behavior rather than have a random one take a meteorite and irradiate lifeboats or projects under construction, etc. Smaller is better for nuclear, imo.
Those are my thoughts, for what they are worth. Also, fuck Beta
2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League
