Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Is that proven? (Score 1) 368

by DrXym (#49554879) Attached to: Debian 8 Jessie Released
The typical work flow for sysvinit is - open a script, launch bash / python / whatever, parse script, invoke daemon, daemon invokes itself again as detached process, script ends. All the scripts are run consecutively.

The typical work flow for systemd is open a unit file, launch the daemon directly as a detached process. Units can run in parallel according to their dependencies. No script required or 2-stage daemon launch.

So yes systemd can obviously improve boot times. However some debian discussion threads suggest they were just pointing systemd to launch the sysv scripts which seems a bit pointless really and won't do much to improve startup.

Comment: Re:I hope she is prosecuted (Score 2) 255

by DrXym (#49536747) Attached to: Wellness App Author Lied About Cancer Diagnosis
More shame on the NHS then.

As for being sued for calling them quacks, I assume you mean Simon Singh's run-in with chiropractors. He eventually prevailed (they dropped it after an onslaught of complaints against their members) and the case became a driving force for reforming defamation law.

So the UK should be glad they sued. Libel law in the UK now requires the claimant to demonstrate it caused serious harm and there are defences for honest opinion, academic peer review, and public interest.

Comment: Re:Why do people dislike systemd so much? (Score 1) 228

by DrXym (#49510287) Attached to: GNU Hurd 0.6 Released
Ah yes, the "fallacious argument" that has happened countless times in open source already. Numerous, large projects and dists have forked before now.

All it takes is the motivation, a group of likeminded individuals and the willpower to deliver a dist that does not use systemd. I expect most packages in the debian universe have no deps on systemd and therefore no work required to support those packages. So we're talking system packages, some daemons and maybe a few shims for edge cases.

As for why there are only 2 dists left not to have gone to systemd, perhaps that should serve as a clue in itself.

Comment: Re:Mandatory xkcd (Score 1) 228

by DrXym (#49499717) Attached to: GNU Hurd 0.6 Released
Your justification is incoherent. If you want to administer "old school" Linux, you just use the old commands. If you want to administer a dist with systemd you use the new commands, or the old commands which are symlinked into their new equivalents.

I'm not sure what the fuck "old-school" even means since it has constantly changed from its inception. Except by saying "old-school" you demonstrate that Amish mentality - drawing a line in the sand and saying things shouldn't possibly progress beyond that point, even if its for the better.

All the whining over systemd could apply equally to procfs, devfs, pci, usb, btrfs, acls, etc. A barrage of changes that (competent) admins are expected to incorporate into their knowledge.

Comment: Re:For me, there are two questions. (Score 4, Insightful) 228

by DrXym (#49491809) Attached to: GNU Hurd 0.6 Released
The debate about micro or monolithic kernels was just a backdrop. The real reason HURD failed had more to do with the mindset of the people involved.

Linus (impatient with the pace of HURD) developed a quick and dirty kernel that a Unix user land could be built on top of. He took a lot of shortcuts, he didn't think too much about portability and basically just made a beeline for the end line - to get a shell and hence other stuff running over a kernel. The kernel filled out and became portable as the project gained momentum and volunteers.

Whereas HURD got stuck up its own ass for correctness and politics. And that's even before Linux existed as a thing. It's hardly a surprise that when Linux did appear that people jumped ship.

It's true there was a debate about micro kernel designs but that alone doesn't explain HURD's failure.

The flush toilet is the basis of Western civilization. -- Alan Coult