Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:Correlation versus Causation (Score 1) 82

Just because you didn't read the whole study, doesn't mean they make this error automatically. ;) Remember, you only read bits and pieces of a media article linked by dice, you didn't actually read the study to find out if they confused cause and correlation.

Also, some studies are designed with particular causes included in the study, in order to check for correlations. Perhaps they started with situations where bad behavior exists, and then measured what correlates. In that case the knee-jerk accusation would almost always be wrong, because it is activated by the syntax of the speaker having implied a cause. But actually if you're searching for effects of a known potential cause instead of causes of a known effect then it inverts everything. So the knee-jerk reaction based on syntax can never know if it is correct or not. It might correlate with the logical error, but you can't accurately identify the cause of the syntax anomaly as being a logical error.

(If your syntax analysis was better, you might have noticed that even the media story describes the study as having measured the spread of introduced behaviors. Measuring the rate of an introduced factor spreading is the most basic correlation study you can do. There is no reason to presume there is implied cause there.)

Comment Re:Confusing all-around (Score 1) 82

But I don't see why they're only talking about negative behaviour since positive behaviour should also spread by the same mechanism. Perhaps upper management is more likely to spread negative things, or the cost of Enrons is too great to offset the benefit of really functional organizations, but I wish they had at least acknowledged the possibility.

Sure, but as the guys on the factory floor can tell you, "shit always rolls downhill." It is the first thing to look at. Don't presume that studies are intended to be definitive; they never are, they're always incremental. I agree they might not have asked the most important question first, but they did ask about one of the most commonly perceived aspects of the topic, which is a normal place to start.

Comment Re:Avoidance (Score 2) 82

If you believe yourself not to have options, you don't.

Is it really true that a small town factory is the only employer possible for their employees? Did jobs exist before that business opened? Are there roads connecting this remote village to other villages with different employers? It is a totally failed argument that has been attempted many times.

Remoteness rarely restricts employment opportunity, because humans are rarely prohibited from travel. Rather, it is the belief in a lack of opportunity, also known as "ignorance," that binds them. It is entirely internal.

Interestingly, people in cities with labor shortages often still maintain the same belief in lack of job mobility, especially if they haven't changed jobs in a long time, and also especially if they are exposed to media that frequently tells them times are tough or that the future is scary and uncertain.

Comment Re:Yeah, but that just means... (Score 1) 197

The form of his statement makes it clear that he's saying it doesn't make sense for the sides that are fighting. You point vaguely at stuff that contains various truths, but they're not relevant to his point, don't change it any way, and you didn't even attempt to actually add anything.

Are you suggesting that external profiteering means that educated soldiers would NOT want to end a conflict once they understand that it harms their own side, and has no chance to make life better for their families? Or are you just repeating an off-topic cliche in any random position?

Comment Re:Why, You! (Score -1, Flamebait) 197

You're trying to defend a pejorative by using an absurd caricature as a straw man stand-in for people who actually support justice. It is pretty weak sauce. I mean, think how awesome and powerful Justice must be that you have to pretend it doesn't exist in order to argue against people who support it?

You even throw in a True Scotsman for good measure; they are incapable of comprehension, even of a basic ethical concepts like "bullying," because of the nature of Justice. They're just not a real SJW in your explanation unless they just don't care, and can't comprehend extant realities.

Do you even comprehend that you're fighting for perceived social justice in your argument? What is an "SJW?" People who do as you do here, and make a case for social justice. You can't be against bullies, and admit you are, and not be a social justice warrior.

It is really not impressive at all. Turn on the news if you want to know how silly and pathetic and freakin' tiny your complaints are compared to the problems in the world that cause people to seek Justice.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 0, Flamebait) 754

LOL no amount of trolling the links will get me interesting in reading your slashdot journal, and no, writing an essay does not replace discussion. Nobody is going to go read that shit. You're generally expected to type in new comments as part of a discussion, and to formulate them for the current context.

And I've personally compiled and installed non-init parts of systemd. You're not going to convince me that I dreamt it; it is actually a well-known myth about systemd that it is modular. Repeating the myth does not make separate compilation or operation of the parts difficult.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 0) 754

LOL you know that you can still read a "binary log format" (were the old ones analog? do the new ones lack text?) using text tools, right? And that you can simply leave the old logs turned on, and still read them?

Did you know that all the old SysV scripts are still supported? Did you know that most daemons don't even have new systemd style startup binaries? And if one does, you can simply delete it, and go back to the SysV script? It isn't like giving up the crufty SysV init process means that you can't still use the init scripts.

"LAMP stacks" aren't affected at all here. Apache or whatever your webserver is should already be running. I run LAMP stacks, and so I know systemd has nothing to fucking do with that shit, at all. You're trying to dick-wave, but you're waving a plastic dildo. You're full of shit that systemd is harming your work in the ways you describe, and if you did that work you'd understand why. Binary logs, are fucking joking? You can't read a log anymore? Guess what, you misunderstood the complaints about binary logs when fabricating your story. In real life, logs are still readable.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 754

> Because the whiners don't have a use-case. systemd is modular, but it tends to come with all the modules packaged together

I'm afraid it's not. The dependencies among components are very strong, and it's quite difficult to segregate out one component for de-activation or non-installation unless you compile with that feature de-activated, in which case you must recompile to re-enable the future. It's very difficult to install only the components you want due to the interdependencies.

Horse shit. I'm not talking about the end user recompiling it. I'm talking about the know-it-all whiners recompiling with those features set the way they need to satisfy their delicate personalities, and then offering those choices as packages for like-minded users. Yes, it is too hard for the actual whiners we have, but it would be easy, beyond simply "trivial," for any Jr Sysadmin or even a Jr Software Developer if they've ever used make.

And no, there are not a bunch of cross-dependencies. That is just ignorance. If you turned off the features that use the other part, it will not still be a dependency. That is how dependencies work in a modern build system. That the whiners we have would not be able to successfully identify and turn off the features they claim are oppressing them is a totally different problem. They don't know how to hoe their own row, so they can just sit and cry about it, maybe walk around and kick some rocks.

Comment Re:More than just money (Score 1) 370

Gilligan's Palace. Maybe on the roof you can put a human cannon, and for an extra six digits it can launch you all the way around the planet and into a big net. Then you roll off the net right into a pool shaped like a giant teacup. And there will be a bunch of sexy green aliens serving poolside drinks.

Comment Re:Intended? (Score 1) 358

Right, OK. I'll explain it to you. Everything you talk about is either a disk drive, RAM, or an external device that plugs into the computer.

Everybody else with commodity systems can also upgrade the parts that are internal, and not just the disk drives and RAM.

You just keep talking about disk drives, disk drives, disk drives. Right, that is all you understand as being upgradeable. If you've been a fanboi as long as you claim, you remember that when you started you couldn't even share disk drives. ;) I know it is great that you can do that now. Now, go get a motherboard from a different vendor, and install that. Oh, you can't, there are no other vendors. LOL derrrrrr

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 754

For the average user, don't worry about the difference. ;)

From the perspective of a *nix power user, people choose the desktop environment separately from the window manager. So they provide very different features. The Window Manager draws the window borders, placement, stacking, etc. The desktop environment does a bunch of other stuff, like managing the video settings, the inputs, cross-application features like cut/paste, print dialogs, and also often provides a GUI "control panel" for managing the whole OS.

Also, if you read the article, you absolutely do not need the systemd init system to use the new features. That is just another myth that the non-readers are circulating and repeating. The article goes into the specific features and what and why questions. It isn't the window manager functions that are involved, but things like the GUI login screen that comes with the desktop environment.

For example, in the old days we didn't have desktop environments. We only had window managers. So instead of being able to start Gnome or KDE from the system and receive a login screen, you'd login to your user account from the text terminal, run a script like "startx" that would have your preferred window manager and settings in it, and that would start the X Window System (which would manage the mouse/keyboard directly) and then it would start your window manager, and a few default applications that probably includes a task bar and some sort of app launcher. Copy/paste usually only worked for apps that used the basic terminal paste capabilities; apps that had more advanced cut/paste capabilities were generally incompatible with each other. And not only was their no common sort of print dialog, there wasn't even a layer in the system to hang it on. Print and copy/paste are the killer features that pushed the creation of a "desktop environment," because there needed to be a layer to attach that stuff to. It needed to be closer to the app than the X Window System, because nobody wanted to add bloat in that layer, and it needed to be closer to X than to the window manager, because people used a lot of different window managers. App developers who wanted portable copy/paste were adding support for individual window managers already, which worked poorly, so there clearly had to be another layer between that and X. Also, when you wanted a GUI login, you had to run that as a separate app to replace the startx script, which made those use cases really klunky and error-prone.

So the desktop environment is designed to run a GUI login screen as a system user, manage the related hardware configuration, allow the user to select their window manager (most gnome environments come with a bunch of different window managers) and then after it is all running, it manages the mouse and keyboard, and provides a unified cut/paste clipboard and printer dialog. It also manages lock screens, etc. Window managers have no idea if you want to lock the screen or not; they're just painting windows after all. In the old days we had background processes spying on your keyboard and mouse directly in order to decide when to launch a screensaver, and lock screens were a screensaver feature. This ties into one of the things finally getting fixed at the desktop level; using non-init parts of systemd to allow the desktop environment to monitor the user inputs, but without giving any old user process access to spy the keyboard and mouse. If that singes somebody's neckbeard it isn't going to stop me from enjoying the improved security.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 754

So now there's no Gnome or KDE on anything but Linux.

There are many of us made happy by that. One less thing to remove from our systems.

To the original question, though: the answer is yes, you can run anything you want on a system with no systemd. That's the point of open source; you can do whatever you want. If systemd really bugs you that much, just build yourself a system without it.

There is always an army of people who are happy about things that are untrue.

If it affected you as much as you imply by referencing removing things from system, which implies being a technical decision-maker, don't you think you would look foolish to have inaccurate beliefs about those things that are affecting you?

The answer isn't just "you can run anything you want." That is a good thing to keep in mind, since nobody is running systemd except by choice. But more to the point here, you can still run gnome or kde anywhere that they ran before. This does not affect that choice, though it might effect installation of specific packages to get specific features on specific non-systemd systems. And of course on linux you can install just the parts of systemd that are used by Gnome or KDE, there is no need to run the init system. People who claim it is monolithic should really learn the *nix commands cd and make.

And honestly if you're using some non-linux OS and have to remove Gnome or KDE, I'd just like to point out that you probably could have just chose to not install it in the first place. Installing a bunch of crap you don't need so that you can hold your nose in the air while uninstalling it... I don't think that is going to impress the BSD crowd very much. Not that anything does. ;)

Comment Re:Duh (Score 0, Troll) 754

So why can't there be other systems that do the various parts that aren't init but systemd is doing?

Because that's for losers. Real computer users get with the program and use systemd for everything. Or they'll get made fun of when they complain about the stuff they want to run depending on systemd when there is no rational reason for it to do so.

Because that's for losers. Real computer users don't cause what they want to exist, they just demand that somebody write the software they want. Pathetic newbs use what others write, or write what they want to use. Real computer users understand the value of convenience, and maximize the efficiency of their uses by waiting for others to do all the work first. And if they don't get what they want, they know it is more efficient to complain loudly and persistently for years until somebody writes what they want, than to write it now, or learn how.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 3, Interesting) 754

So why can't there be other systems that do the various parts that aren't init but systemd is doing?

Because the whiners don't have a use-case. systemd is modular, but it tends to come with all the modules packaged together. They could simply move the non-init functionality (which is the parts that these other packages depend on) into their own package, and just install that. But I guess their fingers would get contaminated by re-packing those parts of the source?

If you read the link in the post you responded to, it explains most of this stuff. It is modular, but the people managing it are using all the modules, so the default distribution contains them all. But you can use just the parts you need, and replace the parts you don't. It just requires simple grunt-work to manage packages the way you want. Thousands of loud whiners, but none that actually have a reason to need a different set of the modules, or the ability to do a simple repackage.

The only reason that the distros don't repackage those parts to be separate is that there is no reason articulated to do so. Whiners just whine, but they don't say words that would have any chance of convincing professionals that they have a differing use-case. We understand they're unhappy, but they don't identify reasons that are technical and real, but rather their reasons are aesthetic and arbitrary. By arbitrary I mean, everything they're doing with their computer still works; all their software still works; all their use cases still work, but they're unhappy for entirely optional reasons. They're choosing to be unhappy, but there is nothing actually wrong. Which from an engineering perspective appears to be entirely "user error." They're using it wrong; if they want to be happy while they use it, they just need to smile more. It is not actually biting them, or making them cold, or eating their cheesy poofs.

All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing without thinking.