https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is basically the new player experience in Quake...

OTOH, it's hard to attract players if the only thing they do when joining a server is getting their asses handed. It may be fun for some of the older players to play with their prey rather than having a "real" fight, but it's just no fun at all for the prey.

The way I see it they can't win: Make the game easier and alienate the old players. Keep it the way it is and ensure no new players will come.

"More elite" is in the same basket as "value edition" and "power user". A nice word for the opposite of what it is.

You're way too hard on them. That's not all they do before releasing the game.

They'd also slap the current year onto the title. How else would you know it's a new game? From looking at it? Please...

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

I'll never be over Macho Grande.

Also, since both sides are talking via the UN and elsewhere neither side appears to have breached 6 either.

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

No I think it's a strength. When MS forced Me, vista, Win8 on it, we recoiled and puked, but some people were forced to use it because they lacked options.

When Ubuntu forced Unity on us, we all just dropped Ubuntu and carried on. There has definitely been a loss to the community, Ubuntu was a solid distro for a while, but it's gone, and we still have options.

For Mom and the unwashed mashes, the iPad does what they need it to do (i.e. very little). For people getting work done, we need choices, we're willing to suffer a little to avoid suffering a lot.

Well, the like-for-like retaliation from Ukraine won't happen. One of the terms of Ukraine's independance was that they give up the nukes they had left over from the break up of the USSR, but their supposed pay back from that would be protection from NATO if Russia were to invade. Now that a full scale invasion of Eastern Ukraine is clearly underway that comment was almost certainly aimed at NATO in an attempt to give them pause while the Russians consolidate their position and get dug-in.

At this point in time, with almost no response by NATO/the West other than some obviously ineffectual sanctions, my money is on Russia successfully annexing enough of Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea (albeit as an "independant" state with its capital in Donetsk or Sevastopol) that it can resupply the Crimea via land from mainland Russia.

Likewise. In the process of migrating a considerable proportion of a large RHEL estate over to BSD here. A general lack of satisfaction with RHEL6 started our look at alternatives - including other Linux distros - but SystemD was our deciding factor in the making the slightly more drastic leap from Linux to BSD. Despite the dream of Linux on the Desktop, most of us are actually running Linux on servers with (hopefully) competent personnel, so we don't really need some cuddly desktop OS that needs to pander to the lowest level of luser or the additional cruft and abstraction layers that brings, let alone the mess of package dependencies that seems to be afflicting Linux at present. In some cases we're seeing significant perfomance gains for what, in theory, should be the same basic set of code so for us it's more performance for less cost, and possibly an interesting call with our RHEL rep when the first tranche of RHEL licenses come up a renewal we are not going to need...

The King is dead, long live the King!

"Although there are those who think bacon is tasty, a loud protests I've posted recently on message boards, forums, and here on /. over the past two weeks would indicate otherwise."

(Yeah, I've been here long enough to know that nobody at /. does any actual editing. Still, can I make fun of the submitter for making it sound like (s)he's the one who is going around and posting all the loud protests, and then trying to make it seem like some sort of movement?)

Yaz

I have at least seven different e-mail addresses on different domains, including gmail.com. Does that also qualify me to be a Google nut?

Android phones (particularly on the high end) are big for exactly the reasons I described. They were big because of technical issues making them small. But if as a by-product that means a phone that works for the fat-fingered four-eyed brigade, well, I have no problems with that. But it's somewhat silly to be overly proud of the fact that you carry around a large phone, when the reasons why it's large are due to technical limitations for it being small. That would be akin to claiming your portable record player is way superior to an iPod because it's bigger. This is still a technology site, isn't it? (I know -- hard to tell sometimes these days).

Oh, and FWIW, I don't own or carry a phone of any kind, so I don't have a horse in the race either way. I'm glad you found the right phone for you, but I wouldn't go around bragging about your phone being generally better just because it's bigger, particularly when the truth of the matter is it's primarily bigger as it requires more hardware to overcome software issues.

Yaz

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.