Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (Score 2) 613

It seems like that problem would be most simply solved by creating a command line tool called 'parallel' that lets you run several commands in parallel, and then returns when it is done. Something like 'parallel cmd1 cmd2 cmd3.'

A wrapper, which can be written as a shell script itself, would look for dependency information in the init scripts, probably in a comment or perhaps in a variable. When the wrapper runs, it checks the status of any required init scripts which share the same first line, using the functionality built into each init script. If they are all running then it fires off the daemon and exits. Else, it blocks if it is critical or not if it is optional, and either way it loops and waits for deps for a decent amount of time. If it is critical the boot process is interrupted, if it is optional then something else happens (script-dependent.) Dependency information could also be stored in a variable in a config file (e.g. in /etc/default) and when not present, the daemon can be treated as critical and blocking. All the other elements of the system remain unchanged, down to symlinks establishing daemon launch order. This requires changes only to init scripts, and even then only for daemons which are expected to launch in parallel. Is there some obvious reason why this wouldn't work?

Comment Re:Troll much? (Score 2) 613

-Bake in more advanced log processing to mitigate the need for log analysis tools.

What was wrong with log analysis tools? One can bang them out with perl in a minute or two.

Starting up /bin/sh hundreds of times during boot is wasteful and slows boot.

No, it really isn't. Process creation is cheap on Unix, and the shell will not only be cached during boot, but one or more copies of it will be present in memory at all times. Running the shell hundreds of times today is a triviality compared to running the shell dozens of times on Unix machines from the 1980s, on which that was in fact not a big deal, because process creation is cheap on Unix. This is just not a real consideration for any modern system, especially given the plethora of lightweight shells available for low-memory or otherwise limited systems.

Sequential startup of services is silly when many can be started in parallel.

This is really the argument that something new was needed, but frankly, it would have been simple enough to handle this without a whole new init system. A shell script wrapper would probably have done this job. Some distributions are already recording dependencies in init scripts; sequence information would be simple enough to add. If this is the best argument for systemd, and so far as I can tell it is that, then it's a really crap argument.

Comment Re:The Future! (Score 1) 613

Great! That is all we need. More fragmentation in the community! As if choosing a distro wasn't confusing enough as it is for newcomers!

It should be relatively simple to create tools to permit systemd to automagically support normal Unixlike config files.

THIS is the reason why Linux will never be a mainstream desktop.

The truth is that nobody but Ubuntu has ever really tried for the mainstream desktop, and they have serious flaws involving ignoring their users; Microsoft and Apple already fill that niche.

Comment Re:I PC game, and have zero reason to upgrade (Score 1) 98

We had a growth bubble. Most corporations depend on endless growth to be healthy. When they stop growing, they start dying. When the PC market maxed out, both AMD and Intel suddenly had no idea where they were going next.

When the new Intel processors come out on the new process and we get to see how low they can get power consumption, we'll see if Intel is going to continue to kick ass in the next iteration, which is going to have to be mobile.

Comment Re:What does taxi service cost the public? (Score 1) 312

0ne of the costs is for licensing is administration of the testing & licensing itself, as well as any oversight, inspections, etc.

Germany already has inspections, and the driver already pays for the inspections. If the problem is inadequate inspection, send the vehicle for more inspections. This is not a cost to the people, because the driver already pays the cost. If there is no significant additional licensing, there is no significant additional licensing cost.

Some cities build taxi pickup lanes and other infrastructure to facilitate the service in specific areas.

Yes, and those costs are seen as a benefit to the city, because they ease congestion.

Comment Re:Anti-competitive behavior is a big deal (Score 1) 312

Taxis are commercial services and part of their fees are used to maintain roads and public facilities they use more heavily than private drivers.

They use them more frequently, but they don't use them any more heavily. If you were taxing vehicles based on the damage they do to the road, buses and trucks would pay basically all the taxes, and passenger vehicles would pay basically none.

They are also required to provide equal access and maintain a certain percentage of handicap accessible vehicles available at all times.

The former is an issue, but cabbies are well-known to choose their fares racially in many countries, why wouldn't they do the same in Germany? It's very difficult to prove. As for accessibility, the market will provide if competition is permitted. The only reason to have such a requirement is that licensed taxis were collectively granted a monopoly on transport for hire, and this restriction on competition in the market prevents market forces from working.

They also have to carry the proper insurance because if they skirted the law on this point, the rest of us would end up paying.

This is solved easily enough with laws requiring more insurance for hire vehicles, and doesn't require a taxi permit system.

Comment Re:Would it really be worse without patents? (Score 4, Insightful) 75

Patents are still useful for small businesses because it provides protection against someone else coming along and patenting your product after the fact.

Not really. They grant patents which conflict with existing patents all the time, and you still need to be able to take a suit to court to prove that the subsequent patent should not have been granted, which means you still need millions of dollars in your legal fund.

Comment Re:Too simple (Score 1) 588

That's the best response to his post you got?

It's the only necessary response.

His response tried to clarify that for you and the other readers and to respond to your fallacy, the No True Scotsman:

Actually, USDA took over the name "organic" by force without consulting those who coined the term. You're using a pretty pathetic determining factor, sheep.

Comment Re:Property rights (Score 1) 215

By inalienable rights, no doubt he's referring to those rights that according to the Constitution, the government cannot take from you. The Constitution does not grant those rights; it prohibits the Federal government from interfering with them. Now, feel free to rant about the obvious overstepping that's been going on since the Civil War.

I don't have to, because you pointed it out. It proves that the government doesn't actually consider those to be rights. We have no rights, period, end of story.

Comment Re:Empty Calories (Score 1) 588

Oh actually, I don't really eat fried chicken with breading. That's not because I won't eat it, it's because I can't find any worth eating. We used to have a broaster in town but the local supplier closed up shop. When I was on Atkins I was just frying chicken thighs in oil as a means of fast, complete cooking. Add soy sauce, powdered ginger, and powdered garlic for an easy asian-ish flavor...

Comment Re:Calorific value? (Score 3, Insightful) 588

More important than either of these is the calorific value of the relative diets. Both of them (low carb / low fat) ultimately work by restricting the types of food, and therefore the calories,

No, in fact, that's the opposite of what this study shows. I'm not surprised you got this wrong, because you are simply parroting the prevailing thinking, but it is plain wrong and this study shows that. Of course, so did the ketogenic/Atkins diet, but you ignored that so it's not surprising that you're ignoring this.

Irony: Holding forth with an obsolete opinion as a reply to an article about a study which proves your opinion obsolete. You may try again, but you have failed abjectly and you're spreading bullshit misinformation to make yourself appear relevant.

Comment Re:Too simple (Score 2) 588

That is why even organic meat contains sugar and all kinds of syrup nowadays.

Uh, what? Only processed foods, and then frankly, almost none of them. The lack of unnecessary ingredients is part of the draw to most Organic brands. Only the fake-ass organics like "O" (Safeway's brand) are full of bullshit like that.

Comment Re:Empty Calories (Score 1) 588

I absolutely packed myself with steak fried in butter, salads with massive wads of bleu cheese, and six-egg omelets with cheddar and some sort of pork product (usually sausage, sometimes bacon) for nine months of ass-sitting and lost ninety pounds. I've kept it off. The thirty more pounds I lost after that while working out and putting on muscle and eating pretty much the same stuff, but less steak and more fried chicken, I've pretty much put back on. But I'm eating "normally" now, including occasional fried food binges when the fair comes through or what have you.

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Working...