I was going to upgrade my servers to Ubuntu 15.04 until I learned that they integrated SystemD into that release, so now is a great time to evaluate OpenBSD in a virtual machine. Maybe OpenBSD could create a section on their web site that provides documentation on the advantages of BSD over Linux as well as some advice on how to avoid common pitfalls that Linux users typically make in BSD. Just for fun, they could call that section "Because of SystemD". In any event, I'm curious to see what I'll miss coming from the Linux world after spending some time in OpenBSD.

On a semi-related note: what's with replacing nginx with their own http daemon? Is the NIH syndrome spreading to OpenBSD as well?

And were those projects for safety-critical systems? Were they replacing 20 years of development where the new system was required to perform every task almost exactly as the original using an entirely different architecture or did you get to make your own requirements from scratch and adapt them however you pleased? Was that system so heavily integrated that a basic task was way too complicated for unit tests which means that all testing had to be performed manually in an integrated environment or using a vast array of virtual machines to push the test data? Did that project require extremely tight security with many different clients in the private and public sectors (requiring drastically different security checks) as the system processed data from those sources and sent custom-filtered data back? I could go on and on, but again, it probably wouldn't matter because it's not something you can appreciate until you've actually done it.

You are insanely naive. You have no idea just how hard it is to build a safety-critical system on this scale. These systems have to be up nearly 24/7/365 and balance a ridiculous amount of data from redundant data sources while avoiding deadlocks and other sources of data contention. In addition to that, they undergo way more testing than you can imagine to ensure that the system handles those large volumes of data correctly and doesn't crash along the way. I used to think like you until I actually worked on an air traffic management system, so I can tell you that you can't possibly imagine how difficult it is until you actually do it.

The rate limiting step of the Airway Traffic Control system just might be somewhere else so there would be no need to do anything else.

Just off the top of my head, major limiting factors are runways to get the flights into and out of the air, passenger demand, and the number of air traffic controllers. And like most projects, the cost and effort to scale rises dramatically with the amount of scale you target. Besides, if the system is anything like the air traffic management system I worked on, then it should scale much better than the system it replaced.

I do find it concerning that the system comprises of 'two million lines of code'.

The software on the plane has more lines of code than that and some of that code actually controls the plane, auto-negotiate collision avoidance, etc. I'd be more worried about that - if ERAM goes down for a brief period, controllers wouldn't be able to see flights, but those aircraft would be able to maintain control of their aircraft until ERAM came back up. If the flight's control system went, then the traffic controller would only be able to watch the flight as it hurtled out of control.

The system has been rolled out one center at a time over the past several years. This article is just stating that the last center has been converted and the transition from HOST to ERAM is complete. That's not to say that there weren't glitches along the way.

It's easy to love Swift now since it's relatively new. Enough time hasn't gone by yet for projects to grow big enough to discover all of its shortcomings. I did like many of the core concepts behind Swift when I first heard about it, but I'm not a fan of its low type safety as well as the fact that it only works on one platform.

And so on. The moment there's not a Next Big Thing You Have to Have, the whole industry goes belly up.

Actually, at that point the only thing left that they can improve would be the quality of the actual content. So yeah, they may very well go belly up.

So rather than empower women by making them better negotiators in the business world, Ellen Pao is trying to take the process of negotiating out of the business world. I'm sure that will end well.

How was this modded insightful?!

The shared library is an out of date concept

No, it is used by every major system today for very good reasons.

Some will say that is how Macs do it

Macs do have shared libraries - the files have a .dylib file extension.

sounds good when storage was expensive

Statically linked apps don't just take up orders of magnitude more storage, but also significantly more memory. Not only that, but a critical security update to one library requires recompiling and redeploying ALL of the apps that use that library.

today we are virtualizing full platforms just to prevent version incomparably

There are tons of reasons to virtualize that have nothing to do with version compatibility or network security.

Since you seem so committed to statically linking apps, I suggest you go through the Linux From Scratch project and statically compile everything. Then, deploy it to an enterprise environment that requires five-nines uptime as well as all security updates. Be sure to set up a video camera so that I can watch with a bug bucket of popcorn.

Slow your roll, cowboy. You expected Gnome3 to handle multiple windows at the same time? What do you think it is, so kind of manager of windows? Full-screen all the way!

It wouldn't be surprising if this is true - Australia is already the home of the deadliest form of everything else on this planet.

How is the upcoming Chevy Bolt going to get 200 miles per charge with a base price of $30,000? I ask because one of the biggest costs of the car is the batteries and not even Tesla will be able to reach that price point until they have their GigaPlant up and running?

Of course not because it exposes the ugliness that occurs when people are operating outside the reach of government regulation and is therefore used by opponents of completely free markets.

Fraud is by definition a departure from the market

Fraud is not a departure from the market any more than it is a feature of the market. It is simply a reality in every society, regardless of how they do business. Of course, fraud can be mitigated through proper regulation but there are a lot of people who oppose that for strictly ideological reasons.

The demand for hacked computers and the information gained from hacking may not be as much as the demand for drugs, but it's certainly up there and I'm sure BitCoin would make a great currency for that market.

Regardless, the original point that everyone has strayed away from is that the libertarians that championed BitCoin as a currency free of government regulation are getting a cold dose of reality. Apparently some government regulation actually serves a usual purpose.