Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Duh (Score 0, Flamebait) 703

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) 703

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) 703

> 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) 328

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) 351

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) 703

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) 703

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) 703

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) 703

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.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 0) 703

If the other init systems want to gain support, they have to support this same kind of functionality somehow.

LOL no they just need to cry louder and louder until the world loses patience and goes back to SysV Hell!!! Just ask slashdot, and you'll see. ;)

I suspect though that most of them are actually running windoze, because they're gamerz, and their *nix flag-waving is purely theoretical. If I'm right it means they won't eventually switch to the *nix flavor they like and shut up, but instead will keep blathering about it for decades.

I personally really appreciate the changes. dbus is the network-aware IPC solution of modern *nix. It already replaced the SysV IPC crap that many of us were still stuck coding for just a few years ago. Moving those advantages into the system level is natural, and a hell of a lot more pleasant than the "enterprise" crap that had the same network management capabilities but were shoehorned piecemeal on top of various directory services, databases, or (shudders) SNMP. Not that SNMP is bad, it is great at the monitoring side. But it is not very pleasant as a control mechanism or bidirectional communication medium.

Comment Re:Duh they have Free Wifi (Score 1) 703

Do they have Free Will...

I read that as "Do they have Free WiFi?".

I must have spent too much time in hotel lobbies lately...

That is your brain fighting back against the "$99 wifi available now" subliminal messaging. There is hope for you, but I recommend a tin-lined wig, just to be safe and blend in.

Comment Re:More than just money (Score 1) 328

There is nowhere to go except for the 3-hour tour category. ;) So he's totally right. Train travel didn't become commercially interesting because somebody had a loop track and could charge tickets to go in a circle. I mean, I know that one pizza place sells a lot of $5 tickets for their outdoor kiddie train ride, which just goes in a circle. But it is not the main commercial use for train travel. In general, commercial travel requires potential passengers with a latent demand to arrive at a destination. The only travel destination in space is the ISS, and it doesn't have the capacity for enough visitors to support an industry.

It isn't enough to build a moon base, you'd need a reason for travel to the moon. If there was a moon base with some sort of high paying jobs, that would create latent travel demand; mostly round-trip tickets to Earth, I assume. And if you had enough workers on that base to support a shopping market, then you might be able to entice a few Power Shoppers to come up from Earth. Then you'd at least be able to support a Bed & Breakfast. Eventually if you had enough jobs on the moon, you'd have a whole city, and would make sense for it to end up as a tourism powerhouse. But that still isn't an industry.

Joyrides at the edge of space seems to be the industry that is developing that is closest to "space travel." And I would assume that its size will be such that Space tours are to space flight as air tours are to air flight. Which is to say, it exists, and people get paid well to do it. But it isn't big business.

Comment Re:More than just money (Score 1) 328

Vikings in north america were more like our moon landings than a space colony that mines and manufacturers.

Not really, because whatever they did in North America was a small backwater part of what they were doing on islands all across the north Atlantic, and which added up to a really large amount of trade. They were supplying lamp oil and walrus ivory even to the Mediterranean. The places those ships were sailing out from was seeing them come back loaded with trade, and those ports were made wealthy from it. So North American exploration by the Vikings or culturally related groups is better understood as the insignificant far reaches of a successful trade route, rather than something like the moon shot that didn't directly relate to commerce.

Moon landing is more like ships that sailed out over the horizon, had no idea where they went, landed on some uninhabited island, and then managed to sail back, starving but alive, and with no trade items. I mean, there were serious practical reasons for the moon landings, but they were related to military technology and politics, not commerce. From a commerce perspective, a moon landing is way way smaller than a viking trade route.

One problem with space mining being profitable, there isn't anything on Earth that is plentiful enough that we have industry that relies on it, yet scarce enough that it would be easier to move it all the way from outside our orbit down to a soft landing, plus the insurance overhead. We've yet to actually use up any of the main industrial resources. For every raw material we use, we're only using the high grade sources. And when those run out, the lower grade Earthly sources will still require less energy to extract than would be needed for space mining.

If you go out and mine a bunch of gold or diamonds or something from the asteroid belt, all you'd do is crash the market on Earth for that item. You would not be able to begin accessing a giant new source of the resource without dropping the price and blowing market predictability to hell. You could flood the Earth with diamonds and improve the average quality of drill bits, but you might only lose money doing it. They won't still have notable cash value. It is the very nature of scarce items and why they are expensive. An unlimited supply might not have as much value as a limited supply would.

Comment Re:Private companies don't do exploration of front (Score 1) 328

Sorry, no, they were using old maps. And cocaine from South America has been found in ancient Egyptian tombs. There was cross-Atlantic trade long before anybody wrote down the details, because those who had the details considered them to be trade secrets. It was only in the modern age when there were already large vessels in every corner of the seas (going "somewhere" but don't ask where) that so many people held the "secrets" that it became more valuable for some percentage of them to make and sell maps to capitalize.

Notice for example that international products were already in local markets in an age where there were no world maps, or even text descriptions, that could tell you where the places actually were that the products were from. That was the case from thousands of years ago, right up to the era of Columbus. Very few explorers were trying to "discover" things in the romanticized sense that modern school history units phrase things in, but rather they were trying to develop their own private maps and routes. When somebody would sponsor an expedition, that is what they were mostly paying for; the ship logs and maps that would be created on the voyage, and that can be used to send additional ships to the same places in the future.

Comment Re:release notes should have informed users (Score 1) 351

How does Microsoft expect us to trust them with automatic updates if they're not going to tell us what those updates are supposed to do?

Just about fell off my chair laughing at you, sorry. You're running it, so they're winning. You being unhappy and still running it, that means they have low customer expectations that are easy to meet. Your intent is to insult their service, but if you apply theory of mind and look at if from their perspective, you're heaping them with compliments.

And in general, the whole point of the updates being automatic is that they don't have to tell you what they do. Knowing what they do is only useful when you're applying them manually. Think about it. ;) If you see "automatic" as being a positive feature, you should not also be seeing "knowing in advance" as a positive feature. The whole point of automatic is to remove that burden from you, the simple user.

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.