Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 581

I'd say it was more about price point than complexity. Its free and good enough vs expensive and full featured.

I don't think that's entirely true. People switched (and still switch) from Solaris to Red Hat, despite Red Hat not being exactly cheap.

I think compatibility and availability of software are the main reasons. The toolbox approach facilitates that, while the kitchen sink abstractions hinder it.

Comment Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 581

I guarantee you that if I could have gotten a Solaris workstation for $2k while the Linux workstation was $7k no one would have cared about upgrading components on Linux more easily.

You'd be surprised. People bought expensive workstations with IRIX and changed them to run Linux. Primarily for compatibility reasons, but there were also people who did it because they liked Linux and the concept of a larger toolbox instead of larger tools.

Comment Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 2) 581

BS. During the early 2000s the discussion of complex scheduling like existed in Solaris came up again and again. There was general agreement that while Linux was fine for simple Linux servers and workstations that the lack of advanced features made it unsuitable to replace big box Unix. Linux induced a financial collapse in big box Unixes now it needs to replace their complexity and functionality.

What you say doesn't hang on a pitchfork.
If the big commercial unix versions (Solaris, AIX, HPUX, IRIX) failed due to their complexity, the solution for the winner, Linux, is not to increase complexity. It's because of the toolbox approach where you can always upgrade one component without touching others that Linux won. Going back to smit-like administration abstracted five ways from hell and with tentacles into everything and its godmother isn't going to make people flock to Linux.

Splitting sysv init into a couple of even simpler and lower level components might.

Comment Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 5, Interesting) 581

There are long term non-systemd distributions. Crux and Alpine for example. The mainstream distributions are having it foisted on them by upstream because open source developers do think it is that good. This isn't about system admins.

The sysadmins are the meal ticket of developers. For years now, we've been saying we don't want systemd unless it can be made compatible and standalone. Now Red Hat calls me and wonders why I choose to install RHEL 6 on new systems, given that RHEL 7 is out. Why? Because we told you in advance what we wanted, and you chose not to listen.

Sysadmins are in a position to choose their operating systems. The developers are not in a position to choose their customers.

Comment Re:Systemd works OK in Fedora (Score 1) 581

Systemd works OK in Fedora

In the same way as ketchup works ok on dinner.
It depends on what you eat, and whether you want diversity or accept ketchup-compatible slop served on fancy plates.

Systems that cater to 90% of the users isn't good enough for Unix-like systems. Because the 10% provide 90% of the innovation.

Comment Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 4, Funny) 581

Tell me why any of that is necessary? It's exactly like how Windows manages network interfaces.

Don't worry - systemd will handle that for you, and bring your interfaces up whether you want them up or not, using hundreds of sensible MSDOS .ini files. And if you run into problems, you can always check the systemd-journald binary logs through a suitable systemd secret decoder program. Unless, of course, the system went down before the non-transactional logging went to disk.

Comment Re:Custody review? What! Huge red flag here. (Score 1) 66

Are you saying you don't think it should be allowed? Collectively, these teachers spend more time with the kids than the parents do. As long as the judge can deal with the context appropriately, it's very important data.

Important enough that it may be sold to the highest bidder 30 years later when the kid runs for president?

The main problem here is retention, and who possesses the data.

Comment Re:and that means it doesn't cost any more? (Score 3, Insightful) 231

generally all citizens paying into something makes it cost more, not less, as the ready availability of other people's cash saps the desire to cut costs.

This is an oft touted claim of conservatives, but it just isn't true. Socialized health care gives far more bang for the buck than privatized. Take a look at how much Americans pay in healthcare costs pro capita (pre-Obamacare if you like, so you won't have that to blame), and compare that with factors like lifespan and health. Columbia pays far more and gets far less precisely because it's so privatized.
The problem is that with a capitalized system, what matters is maximizing profit, and prices will converge at the highest cost the buyers are is willing to pay. When what you pay for is your life and health, the sky is the limit.

Why do Americans go to Canada to buy prescription drugs? Because the free market does not mean lower costs. Rather the opposite.

Comment Re:Cellphone reception issues? (Score 1) 202

The only way your phone doesn't have a preference list is if its brand new, never been activated on anyones network and never had a sim card in it.

For Android:
Settings -> Wireless & networks -> Mobile networks -> Access Point Names
Choose "Reset to default" from the menu.

That gives me an empty list.

Comment Re:About time for a Free baseband processor (Score 1) 202

Interestingly, the Constitution does recognize Common Law as existing authority, and under Common Law the DOI had no weight, it was just a political document.

That's putting the cart before the horse. Before the constitution, civil law was what was in effect. The constitution cannot retroactively change that for the time the declaration of independence was written.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Working...