Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: No. Use optimal language(s). Write less code. (Score 1) 295 295

A few suggestions:

1. If possible, do not write new code.
If there is open source that does something close use that, and update for your needs.

2. Use a language that fits the problem.
It could be nodejs for certain complex http state machines. It could be python for high level applications. It could be C or assembly for low level performance requirements.

3. Don't limit to one language. Sufficiently large applications are usually implemented in several languages. Not purely for programer preference. But because it fits. If you write 1000 lines of C++ for a task that could be done in 20 lines of python or nodejs, then you are doing something wrong.
Solving the same problem twice (in multiple languages), will often help in design but also in revealing the optimal choice.

4. Keep code modular, so you can easily replace an implementation( with a new language or new design). Modular, meaning split at a library/executable/networking boundary, not "Object oriented", which does not necessarily aide with any software engineering principal.

Comment: Re:Prototypical (Score 1) 80 80

I assume they just grew tired of the uniformed C++ masses saying. "JS is not 'real' OO, `cause it has no classes".

Classes are not required for objects, obviously. JS always had objects with properties and methods. And while using objects as prototypes for creating other objects is different than a Class based system, objects are still objects.

They just caved, and added class syntax sugar. You can still use JS the original/correct way, and ignore the class syntax.

I guess the class syntax does help those C++ programmers, who in the past insisted on creating ugly class wrappers in JS. At least their c++'ized code will be slightly less ugly.

Comment: How? Fork Ubuntu? Use Devuan? (Score 1) 347 347

I am a skeptical.

Will Mint really fork Ubuntu? And keep an Upstart optional system?

An easier path, is perhaps have two paths (as Mint currently has).

An Ubuntu based system, which would have SystemD,

And a Devuan based system, which would offer other init systems. (The Devuan system would replace the Debian derived Mint).

Comment: "overwhelming support" (Score 1) 863 863

I think I missed the poll. Can someone support the statement with a poll/survey data?

My experience is the opposite.

There is enough of a divide over systemd to make it an option or a fork will result.

If debian does not allow turning systemd off, I think the following will happen:

- debian fork created, allow turning systemd off.
- majority of debian users adopt fork.
- majority of systemd people use Ubuntu or fedora.
- systemd-off becomes option in Debian
- systemd-off becomes option in Ubuntu and Fedora

Comment: Systemd distribution (Score 5, Funny) 303 303

The Systemd distribution (or GNU/Systemd/Linux as it is now called) deserves the Man of the Year award this year, because it has unified so many stand alone Unix style components into one unified quality program. By unifying everything into one program, we have eliminated redundant code, bugs, and rallied all of the Linux community behind the one user-space kernel. We can continue this trend of streamlining and eliminating waste, by merging in a compositor, a browser engine. We believe that molecularity will only allow the user to be confused with choices and that good incremental development is like making good stew. Throw everything in.

Comment: Re:illogical captain (Score 2, Insightful) 937 937

The distinction between an Agnostic and an Atheist does not serve any real purpose. Except, perhaps that the Agnostic is scared to admit their belief.

Instead of God, consider Bigfoot.

Atheist: Does not believe that Bigfoot exists. (reason: no proof)
Agnostic: Does not know if Bigfoot exists (though has no proof)
Theist: Believes Bigfoot exist (though has no proof)
Gnostic: Knows that Bigfoot exists (though has no proof)

The above list is ordered from most logical to least logical.

If there is actual scientific proof of Bigfoot/God, then perhaps we could reverse the list.

Comment: Re:Oh, man, what a mess (Score 2, Informative) 151 151

"secure commercial product"

I assume you implying that closed source is more secure.

Doe you really believe that? Why?
  - Do you think security by obscurity is real security?
  - Do you believe that closed source has more code audits?
  - Do you believe that there is less change of NSA or other back doors in closed source software.

"IIS was never vulnerable..."

Really? Try a search for "IIS SSL vulnerability".

Comment: Re:Stupidity is contagious (Score 1) 279 279

These:
http://ewontfix.com/14/

What exactly are the bounds of SystemD?
It touches every part of the system from the kernel to the UI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Such an unbounded piece of software violates basic software engineering concepts, and the Unix tradition of tool simplicity.

Comment: Re:I see a lot of discussion about systemd (Score 5, Insightful) 379 379

"systemd versus sysv init most visibly leads to faster boot".

That was the original marketing. systemd of course is much much more than boot.
Systemd touches every part of the OS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Upstart was bad. Systemd is worse. Both were born as boot/init systems and are unconstrained in scope.

Any program unconstrained in scope will grow into a monolithic mess.

Comment: sad. Now what is the alternative? Fork? (Score 1) 379 379

Upstart was unnecessary in Ubuntu. Systemd is not necessary in Fedora or Debian.

There are other ways to get fast boots, without create another monolithic do-everything daemon with spaghetti dependencies.
Basic software engineering principles (and Unix principles), should tell you that do-everything daemons, like upstart, systemd, hald are bad ideas.

With such complex, unmodular core Linux systems, Linux based OS's will grow increasingly more unstable and insecure.

Also, systemd and upstart make Linux much less suitable for embedded systems.

The choices, I guess, are:

Fork the pre-systemd Debian.
Start fresh, perhaps even starting with the simple event based init system from the most popular Linux distribution in the world ... Android.

Much of the excitement we get out of our work is that we don't really know what we are doing. -- E. Dijkstra

Working...