Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fear of changing code.... (Score 1) 198

by swillden (#47930845) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Have You Experienced Fear Driven Development?

I have also seen/heard of circumstances where "doing the minimum to keep the thing working" is allowed but actually improving the code is not because improving the code counts as "new work" and comes from a different budget than maintenance. Seems stupid but that's how some shops operate.

"The minimum to keep the thing working" nearly always implies improving the code. All developers need to realize this and stop this silly false dichotomy between "maintenance" and "refactoring".

IMO, developers know there isn't a difference but management does not.

Does management review the diffs?

Comment: Re:Keyboard (Score 2) 102

by Archangel Michael (#47929865) Attached to: iOS 8 Review

Tapping a keyboard three times to type special character. No Swype. Caps always showing, regardless of actual capitalization. All but Unusable with one hand (one handed typing jokes aside). Auto Correct that guesses wrong more often than it should. The interface is not as intuitive as Apple or iOS users claim it is, IMHO.

Comment: Re:Anti-math and anti-science ... (Score 2) 551

by swillden (#47929687) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

There are obvious differences between Christianity and Islam that make Christianity able to coexist with a modern secular state while Islam is showing all over the world that it can't.

This is only because Christianity has changed. Christianity as it was during the era of the crusades, and for hundreds of years after them, not only could not coexist with a secular government, it couldn't even coexist with an ostensibly Christian government which espoused a slightly different form of Christianity.

Note that I'm not bashing Christianity here... I am a Christian. But let's not whitewash the history of Christianity.

can you imagine the Pope leading a frenzied crowd in the St. Peters square in chants of "death to infidels"

Well, historically, the Pope doesn't lead chants. Instead he just issues orders to root out and forcibly "convert" infidels via torture, to save their souls. Of course, popes haven't done that for centuries because it has become unacceptable to Christians.

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 1) 551

by swillden (#47929619) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

That said, what would really make it tough for them is a lack of opposition. Their tactics tend to be very self defeating when the larger powers don't overreact and get drawn into conflict with them.

Not from any evidence I've ever seen. No larger power had given them any attention for the past year, and their numbers, financial resources, and power swelled unchecked; they only become a greater threat with time.

That's only because they're riding the wave created by previous overreactions and conficts, and the (reasonable from their perspective -- and probably correct) that if they keep at it they'll get the reaction that will justify their existence.

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 3, Insightful) 551

by Archangel Michael (#47928741) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

You underestimate the power of radical ideologies. While what they appear to be doing is self defeating, it really isn't. It draws in those people who need an identity. People said similar things about Nazi's (yeah I just Godwined the conversation). The one thing Nazi's had, that ISIS doesn't is government. But in today's age, being nebulous, decentralized is an asset, like Hydra (cut off one head two more takes its place). We killed off OBL, but he wasn't really running things when we did, and Taliban and Al Qaeda still remain. And even if they didn't, the people in those organizations just change their name, and regroup. This is the same tactic used by most counter culture politics.

The only effective tactic we have at this time is to target and kill the leadership, until the organization crumbles from lack of leaders. We don't need a standing army to do this, just Letters of Marque.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 1) 248

by drinkypoo (#47928733) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Xorg, which on desktop is as critical as init to keep running, is not really simple.

Never go full retard. X is not even remotely as important as init. For one thing, if X dies, who will restart it? And do we really want computers that explode when the GUI dies? I, for one, would like network services to terminate gracefully. The whole idea of TCP/IP networks, the dominant network used with Unix, is peer-to-peer. I may well run both services and clients on my machine. If X dies, the clients may die (if they're not text and running in screen) but the servers won't.

kernel, which is also as critical as init to keep running, and it is *much* *much* more complex than systemd. systemd is not at the "bottom layer" of the system, there's the whole of kernel underneath still.

So the argument is that since the kernel is complex, we should add more complexity, or that more complexity won't matter? That's an ignorant, illogical argument.

And one common myth is that systemd has these so many features and systemd is pid 1 therefore pid 1 is this huge bloated monster that does udev, logging and NTP, right? Wrong; actually, just the core bits of systemd run in pid 1 and the rest is compartmentalized in a bunch of separate daemon processes.

Systemd still has to be more complicated so that it knows how to run these other processes, which wasn't even necessary. init was never meant to manage daemons. daemons were meant to manage themselves, or be run from inetd. If you want more complexity, inetd is the place to add it. And for handling daemons which don't adequately manage themselves, there's daemontools. There was simply no need whatsoever for this to happen.

So, this "increased complexity" issue is not really as bad as it sounds, realistically.

It is bad, because PID1 is now responsible for a bunch of things which could have existed in any other daemon. And rather than roll the things which actually make sense in together, everything is getting rolled together. So now not only do we depend on a complex kernel, but we depend on a needlessly complex init system. There was no good reason to put all of this stuff into the same daemon.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2) 248

by drinkypoo (#47928683) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

You can't seriously claim that systemd provides nothing that can't be done by script based init systems, shell scripts and existing daemons

Yes, yes I can. And I did.

logind is just one example

Does nothing a script can't do

But it would be an interesting project to make a Linux SysVinit distro that tried get feature parity with systemd, so that daemons could utilize the kernel "namespaces" and "capabilities"

Systemd doesn't even fucking use capabilities, just cgroups. Which we could use before systemd. Systemd manages permissions in lieu of using capabilities, e.g. apparmor or selinux.

Isn't that argument just trying to make a virtue out of the fact, that SysVinit and the like, are totally crude and primitive init systems that are unable to anything much of interest?

No. That is the virtue. They are simple. Simplicity is still a virtue.

All the analyses I have seen shows that moving crucial processes into PID2, just makes everything more fragile and opens up security holes.

Making PID1 more complex makes everything more fragile and opens up security holes.

I think that there are actually very good design reasons for why systemd is designed like it is.


It only runs one process as PID1, the daemon "systemd" which is rather small. This daemon however, is capable of "talking" with with several other processes, which gives it many advantages,

This is making init do stuff it doesn't need to do, which makes it more complex, which makes it more fragile. You should not need a detailed explanation to understand why this is a bad thing.

Comment: Re:Are you even aware of SystemD works? (Score 3, Informative) 248

by drinkypoo (#47928579) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

You don't seem to understand how SystemD actually works. The PID 1 is relatively simple -- it uses all sorts of separate (i.e. non-PID 1) helper processes to do all the heavy and complicated lifting.

Lifting which should not be done by PID 1. And PID 1 has to be more complex than it should be just to handle those external programs.

SystemD currently does a fuckton of stuff no other currently usable init system on Linux does.

It does a lot of stuff the init system shouldn't do.

(Reliable process supervision which cannot be evaded,

cgroups existed before systemd.

sane handling of process stdout/stderr

Up to the init script.

proper handling of dependencies at runtime

Already handled by several init systems.

socket activation

We call it inetd.

I don't particularly care which init system my system runs, but I want those features and currently only SystemD can deliver them.

That is ignorance at best, or perhaps a lie.

Please stop spreading FUD about things you know next to nothing about.

You have no idea about anything, that didn't stop you. I see why you didn't log in.

Comment: Re:Misleading slashdot headline (Score 2) 248

by Archangel Michael (#47928197) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Practical is how we work. Monolithic or Micro based are independent of whether or not something is practical. What is practical in one situation (small robust control system with high availability) may not be practical (complex system of varying hardware) elsewhere.It is a matter of how close to sigma six you need to be, because each degree closer, is a magnitude more difficult to reach.

The fact is, you can talk all you want about what is "practical" in a specific case, and I may be arguing that your "practical" isn't practical for me and my specific case. We'd both be right, but not for each other. This is pragmatism at its core. One size doesn't fit all. Never has, never will.But you can build things so that One Size Fits Most, that works in 95% of the cases.

Systems that are outliers shouldn't be where we decide things for the 95%.

Comment: Actually against Islam (Score 3, Interesting) 551

by Firethorn (#47927543) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

Okay, I'm not a Muslim, nor am I an expert. I've been over in majority Islamic countries a few times though and had a few 'cultural appreciation' lessons.

Isis is violating a good amount of Islamic teachings with this ban.

Though I can't see how they're still allowed to teach chemistry(even if they have to say it's due to Allah's rules and law) if they're not allowed to teach math, so it might be an error in the article. Math may have been de-emphasized against teaching their propaganda.

New systems generate new problems.