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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:KDBus - another systemd brick on the wall (Score 1) 183

by squiggleslash (#49563293) Attached to: Linux 4.1 Bringing Many Changes, But No KDBUS

Yes, it absolutely does. It ties functionality together in a way which is designed to be difficult to tease apart specifically because of NIH.

That's not a helpful reply. SystemD does not resemble "The Windows way". It's a long time coming fix to something that's been considered creaky and crappy now for about 20 years. It integrates things that shouldn't have been separate in the first place. Is it really the "Unix way" for instance to handle login shell sessions only if they come in via serial ports or the framebuffer/USB keyboard, but not via TCP sockets?

It's tying functionality together because it's the same functionality, and it shouldn't be replicated in three different places, managed by eleven different daemons, with 871 different security models.

Windows way? No. It doesn't resemble Windows even slightly.

Comment: Re:Shady Misinformation About Real Name Policy Too (Score 1) 302

by squiggleslash (#49562001) Attached to: Google Insiders Talk About Why Google+ Failed

Who said he was using Facebook? I also avoided G+, and had avoided FB for much the same reason.

FWIW my "social networking" involved various Blogging networks (such as LJ) and Twitter. Google+ would probably have had me given they made it a super Twitter, but for the real names policy.

Comment: Re:danger vs taste (Score 1) 336

by squiggleslash (#49561691) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

sugar (is) pretty much the only ingredient that does NOT have a daily % listed. It is due to the sugar lobby fighting reports from years back showing sugar is the real killer and reason for obesity in so many folks.

Based upon the standard label:

Total Carb: 39g 13%
Sugars: 38g

the recommendations are not micromanaging which types of carb you eat - doesn't matter if you're eating potatoes or sugar, the recommendation is of the total - and for those with dietary concerns about sugars specifically (such as people with diabetes) the critical information is right there.

This makes sense. If from a health point of view, outside of specific concerns about diabetes, there's no "right" balance of sugars to non-sugars, then I wouldn't expect the label to suggest you have to eat a certain amount of sugars each day.

Comment: Re:danger vs taste (Score 1) 336

by squiggleslash (#49561601) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

Sales of diet Pepsi are falling because half of them are buying Pepsi Max instead

I suspect Pepsi Max would be in that bracket of "Diet sodas" whose sales are falling. In any case, could it be that Pepsi Max exists because sales of diet sodas are falling? That is, it was an attempt to remarket a failing product?

Comment: Re:File manager without file, edit, view.. (Score 1) 398

by squiggleslash (#49560319) Attached to: Debian 8 Jessie Released

They did include a "classic mode" from the start. It was originally called "Fallback". Over time they've updated how and why they implemented it, but the classic desktop was never really removed, just hidden behind absurd levels of obfuscation because they really thought you'd like GNOME Shell if only you'd use it.

Comment: Re:With the best will in the world... (Score 2) 295

There's no Nitrogen in the diagram, so I'm guessing not.

Essentially they're reformulating the pollution burning the fuel will put out. In goes CO2 mixed with Hydrogen and Oxygen (at different stages), and out comes the fuel. Fuel burns, out goes CO2 and water. It's in theory a closed cycle, as long as renewable electricity is used to separate the H2O and power the rest of the process.

The major concern I have is that it doesn't look terribly scalable, but I'm not a chemist.

Comment: Re:times smaller,,, (Score 1) 60

by ScentCone (#49559863) Attached to: Cosmologists Find Eleven Runaway Galaxies
I get it. It's just too much trouble for you to choose between multiple ways of saying something in order to be succinct instead of vague. People who don't value clarity never realize that they people they're talking to - every time that happens - value that communication (and the person attempting it) less and less over time.

What's so hard to understand? This forum is full of people correcting others' poor use of communication when talking about everything from natural selection to global warming to employment demographics. Someone makes a sloppy choice of phrase, and the simple thing they're trying to convey turns into a four-step back and forth during which everyone from trolls to the merely dim decide to screw up the thread or just rant because the OP couldn't trouble themselves to just speak clearly in the first place.

This particular lapse in clarity, which comes up regularly in lazy science and technology reporting, isn't the point. The larger point is the grinding erosion in careful communication, and the erosion in clear and critical thinking of which that is an indicator. You think this is about ego? It's about understanding the power and value of properly nuanced communication, especially in the shortened format that venues like this tend to encourage.

I need to learn English? What you're really saying is, I need to forget English, because it's just too much trouble to quickly sort through the differences found in several ways to say the same thing, each of which contributes to a more quickly digested communication of different ideas. You're cranky because I'm not a fan of lazy thinking, and the fact that you think "learning English" means forgetting how to distinguish between different words is exactly the larger problem I'm pointing out.
User Journal

Journal: Chronicle: New glasses and contacts (2)

Journal by Chacham

I have tried two more brands of contacts, both hydrogel and toric, with little success. The first pair had the right eye not so bad, but the left was blurry. Ultimately, my appointment was for Sunday, and when i was late i received a phone call. Oops! I guess i've been relying on those reminder calls a bit too much.

Comment: Re:KDBus - another systemd brick on the wall (Score 1) 183

by squiggleslash (#49559755) Attached to: Linux 4.1 Bringing Many Changes, But No KDBUS

Maybe you're hearing it a lot because you're participating in a group that keeps quoting stuff out of context in order to try to make something look bad. I'm not trying to be mean, but that's a good sign that you're arguing not in good faith, but because of gut feel about something. If SystemD was bad, you wouldn't need the out-of-context stuff, as it'd be easy to point at things that exist, and say "Look, here, that's a problem."

Comment: Re:KDBus - another systemd brick on the wall (Score 1) 183

by squiggleslash (#49559623) Attached to: Linux 4.1 Bringing Many Changes, But No KDBUS

SystemD doesn't in any way resemble the "Windows way", stop being ridiculous.

As for the kernel and SystemD being linked, I don't see a problem as long as the distro makers recognize that and bundle the two together. Kernels are always installed with a group of support files that they hard depend upon, notably the modules. As long as multiple versions of the kernel-dependent SystemD can be installed, and grub is set up properly to ensure each kernel points at the right version, there shouldn't be an issue.

If there ever is, it means a problem with that distro.

Comment: Re:Wounded Not Dead (Score 0, Offtopic) 183

by squiggleslash (#49559457) Attached to: Linux 4.1 Bringing Many Changes, But No KDBUS

There's nothing stopping you from running Linux with SysV Init. You won't be able to use modern versions of GNOME (but who does?), and you won't be able use the major distros, but if that's what you want, by all means go for it. Linux (in terms of what we're talking about here - ie the thing called "Linux" that has a version number of 4.1) is only one component of the operating system, and doesn't have SystemD as part of it.

But bear in mind that SysV Init has been straining at the seams now for around two decades, probably more. When it was written it was rare for a Unix system to fail to boot for any reason other than a hardware fault or disk corruption. The notion a minor misconfiguration of a networking script could take down a machine was unthinkable back then.

Bear in mind SysV init was never upgraded to take into account changing usage. Take a look at /etc/inittab. Try and find a man page that still describes the format. Ask yourself why it exists. Ask yourself why, bearing in mind it does, inetd is a completely different, unrelated, system. Ask yourself why sshd exists and why those connections aren't managed by inetd or init.

Bear in mind that Linux the kernel has had some major security and process management systems now for over half a decade that SysV init is incapable of using - and always will be. That those security and process management systems, if used, significantly improve both the security and reliability of Linux based operating systems by making it easier to, amongst other things, truly sandbox processes in a way superior to BSD's jails feature. Ask yourself why we should be prevented from using them simply because the operating system's daemon management system doesn't support anything the AT&T kernels didn't support in 1983..

Bear in mind that SysV Init's faults are so obvious to people who actually build operating systems that SystemD isn't even the first try at this, that Upstart was considered "very nearly there" as a suitable replacement, and that the real debate was between SystemD and Upstart, not SystemD and SysV init.

Finally bear in mind that SystemD is a true superset of SysV Init in terms of functionality. This isn't the Wayland/Mir "Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater because there's too much spaghetti code" nonsense, there's nothing you can do with SysV Init that can't be done with SystemD. Except it's much, much, harder now to hose your configuration so badly that it's not going to come up because an NFS share wasn't available when you rebooted your computer.

Comment: Re:In other words... (Score 1) 226

if a disease can spread because it can find enough vectors since not enough vaccinate, you are also giving the disease time and space to tinker, and perhaps evolve a new strain that existing vaccines don't protect against

so: yup. but that's less superrich killing and more superstupid killing us

Using TSO is like kicking a dead whale down the beach. -- S.C. Johnson