Comment Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (Score 1) 613
Maybe the primary reason they made systemd is because they thought init scripts were too complicated?
Well, they were wrong. Init scripts are gloriously simple compared to systemd.
Maybe the primary reason they made systemd is because they thought init scripts were too complicated?
Well, they were wrong. Init scripts are gloriously simple compared to systemd.
and was passed and signed in alarmingly little time, almost without debate or dissent
And, worse, anybody who did dissent was accused of sympathizing with terrorists.
And debate was reduced to "ZOMG, but, teh terrorists
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." -- Padme Amidala
Well, they're saying that since it's "only" metadata, it's not the same as getting all the data, and since the metadata is already used for billing, it can't be secret, right?
The second half of the equation seems to be "since we passed this law, it must be legal because we said so".
I figure if eventually a court doesn't say "sorry guys, but you really can't do that just because you say so", then America has pretty much jumped the shark and the Constitution no longer applies.
And then things will get really interesting.
I'm sure no lawyer, but it's always been incomprehensible how this could NOT violate the 4th amendment, because it amounts to general warrants and collecting everything just in case you need it.
And when law enforcement started doing parallel reconstruction, you could see how all of their claims of "don't worry, citizen, we will only use this for terrorism" were completely false.
9/11 triggered (or simply sped up) a decline into a totalitarian state where the law is whatever the government says it is, and the Constitution is meaningless.
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...
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
-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
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.
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.
I'll never be over Macho Grande.
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.
Fast, cheap, good: pick two.