Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Why do people dislike systemd so much? (Score 1) 220

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) 220

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) 220

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.

Comment: Re:Wouldn't a re-write be more fruitful? (Score 2) 209

by DrXym (#49468575) Attached to: Linux Getting Extensive x86 Assembly Code Refresh
The problem with total rewrites is they almost always involve a huge amount of effort, introduce new bugs and when they "work", users barely notice the difference. So the company soldiers on, applying patch upon patch to some bullshit codebase and suffering from it but in a incremental way.

Worst of all is when they embark on a rewrite and give up half way through. I was involved in a project to port a C++/ActiveX based system to .NET forms. They ported most of the major views but left a lot of the minor stuff from the old codebase lying around and wrote bridges to host it in the new framework. So they doubled the code, half of it became bitrotten and hidden by the new code and bloated out the runtime. Great project.

Comment: Re: here's the benefit (Score 1) 71

by DrXym (#49427655) Attached to: Has the Bitcoin Foundation Run Out of Cash?
Which is of course why the exchange rate tanks every time one of these supposedly secure exchanges collapses or disappears with your money. It doesn't matter how fastidious with your own bitcoins, their effective purchase power is still fucked over by all the cons, scams and general incompetence. People lose confidence in the system and bailout.

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android