Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 737

I think you missed the simple fact that everything was working fine before, without cramming everything in the init process.

Has everything been crammed into the init process? In what may have been a bad PR move, the systemd people use "systemd" both to refer to the init process and to their whole suite of daemons, most of which run as processes separate from process 1, so "systemd does XXX" doesn't necessarily mean "XXX has been crammed into the init process".

Comment Re:If we're going systemd, we should go full throt (Score 1) 737

Except when it doesn't and since it swallows stderr

A sane background/daemon process launcher sends stdout and stderr somewhere where it gets logged. Are you saying systemd just sends the standard output and error of stuff it launches to /dev/null, or that it sends them somewhere that's not easy to process? (Launchd sends them to the Apple System Log mechanism, which, yes, does have a binary log database, but ASL also sends stuff, including the stdout/stderr from launchd-launched processes, to the Boring Old Text File /var/log/system.log.)

Comment Re:If we're going systemd, we should go full throt (Score 1) 737

If as a result the Linux community grows closer together and focuses more on consistency I'm all for the move to systemd - even if that moves Linux away from the rest of the unixes due to loss of posix compliance.

Not that systemd affects POSIX compliance (and not that Linux is certified as POSIX-compliant; I haven't found it to be significantly worse than any other UN*X in terms of "annoyingly different from everybody else" - frankly, if there isn't at least one thing your UN*X-family OS does annoyingly differently from all the other UN*X-family OSes, it can't really call itself a UN*X :-)).

Comment Re:Introduction (Score 2) 207

Reminds me of the movie fight club where the guy supposedly worked for a car company, and part of his job was working with formulas to determine if the cost of lawsuits from deaths would be higher than the recall cost.

At least according to a Mother Jones story from 1977, something similar did happen at Ford, although it wasn't based on lawsuit costs, it was based on a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figure for the dollar value of a human life.

Comment Re:This is stupid ... (Score 1) 143

The reason we adjust for leap years and leap seconds is our calendar is a close approximation to our orbital period ... but it's not exact.

That's the reason we adjust for leap years. The reason we adjust for leap seconds is that the speed of the earth's rotation 1) isn't exactly 360 degrees in 86400 SI seconds and 2) changes over time, so it's not even a fixed value close to 360 degrees in 86400 SI seconds.

Comment Re: node.js? (Score 1) 107

Node's JS engine *is* V8.

Meaning "node.js requires some C++ bindings and there are only versions of those bindings for V8" (or "can only be versions of those bindings for V8", as they're dependent on the way V8 works)? (I.e., better phrased as "the only JS engine on which node.js can run is V8".)

Comment Re: node.js? (Score 2, Informative) 107

node and chrome have nothing to do with each other besides sharing the JS engine.

node.js uses a JavaScript engine, as it's written in JavaScript. Chrome is a browser that has a JavaScript engine. So they share even less than that.

So the question is "does running node.js on V8 render it vulnerable?"

Comment Re:Not Making Sense (Score 1) 197

Unfortunately, too many designers use tiny light gray type. CONTROL + and CONTROL - don't help much when the contrast is that low, and some designs don't expand enough to be easily readable.

If someone were to develop glasses that reduces one's ability to handle low-contrast text, it would be wonderful if all UI designers (including, but not limited to, Web designers) were forced to wear them while doing design work (and if any marketing and management types who interfered with the usability of the resulting designs were put to death immediately).

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 350

It may have also been because Google is Mountain View's biggest taxpayer and biggest employer. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Do you think that the King cares about that? The car was on "the King's Road", or perhaps "the royal road".

No, Phil probably doesn't care all that much. (Then again, it stopped being the King's road, except by name, back in 1821.)

Comment Re:Mac ? (Score 1) 63

The link has nothing to do with what the parent implied or did not imply ... did he mean "user root" or root less as in X-Windows integration into the Mac OS X GUI? Both actually has nothing to do with the topic ... so my bet is the parent only was shuffling words ;

If by "the parent" you mean the comment where I asked "Can you turn off rootless mode on OS X 10.11 with this tool?", then I can assure you with 100% certainty that he meant "the System Integrity Protection feature of OS X El Capitan, often referred to as "rootless mode", as he is me. The "root" in there refers to the user root; "rootless" mode disables even the root account from making some changes.

The question was asked because the only way a trojan will be able to modify the files protected by System Integrity Protection would be if it could 1) turn System Integrity Protection off or otherwise disable it or 2) somehow evade its protections.

Comment Re:Mac ? (Score 2) 63

It appears that both the server and client are multi-platform, possibly as Java packages.

As that page says, "The Client was coded in Java to support as many OS as possible. It requires the Java Version 7 and is extremely persistent.", although it "supports less features" on OS X, Linux, and other "Unix machines".

Presumably it runs as root if it "You can view, create, delete, rename, download, copy and move all files & folders on your clients machine.", unless the ability to do that to all files and folders is one of those features not supported on UN*Xes. (Can you turn off rootless mode on OS X 10.11 with this tool?)

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.