Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 575

by Jack9 (#48628811) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

> Alternately, nobody I know had even heard of the movie before the hacks

In the US, it's was pretty hard to miss. From the media coverage over the last few months to the previews that have been in theaters since March. Not to mention that Seth Rogan has been talking about it since he started filming and James Franco since at least the last Planet of the Apes movie (where his character was barely included).

Comment: Re:Science does not work like that (Score 1) 329

by Jack9 (#48565761) Attached to: Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

> Papers that are not addressing AGW and take no position on AGW are irrelevant, no matter how many ad hominem labels you spew and assumptions you make.

That statement is incorrect. Such papers are specifically relevant. Scientific papers that do not take a position are not excluded as a factual record that serves as credible evidence. Irrelevancy would be based on insufficient rigor or correlation.

Comment: Re:counter-example? (Score 1) 161

by Jack9 (#48537053) Attached to: Why Apple, Google, and FB Have Their Own Programming Languages

> Taking it further, the prototypal approach to OO that JS uses is, without question, superior to the classical approach

Please point to the study that demonstrates this. I would argue the opposite.
Runtime definition of types (modifications to a prototype has the same effect) has never been shown to be more productive than static typing, so I have to question assertions that it's obviously true.

> Python would be examples of popular languages that would clearly be worse than JS on the web

Java on a browser wouldn't be Java anymore than javascript is (they share some syntax!). Any modern scripting language is going to have to deal with a browser environment in similar ways, so we can just treat them the same. Why isn't a scripting language appropriate? Yes you would have to design a syntax for portability and make a browser vm, but so what? That's part of implementing a language in what we currently have as a browser client.

Comment: Re:DebianNoob (Score 1) 450

by Jack9 (#48347627) Attached to: Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

> The day RH choices disturb any big company from their own ecosystem, they will be eaten alive.

If RH never made another release, there would be similar disruption.
That doom theorycrafting is irrelevant to my question.

> RH *is* a business, Debian is a community effort

That's also irrelevant. They are distros from a business standpoint. CentOS being interchangeable with Fedora since forever. How they came to be is a footnote.

My question was about relative usage and some way to measure that metric other than guesswork, as a challenge to the assertion that RH is "a marginal player". systemd adoption in RH is mentioned in 100% of the "discussions" on the topic. So someone here is showing bias.

If you were going to address the issue in an objective manner, you might note Debian, tends to identify itself when you run fingerprinting on servers (e.g. Apache and Nginx). Debian tends to be the most common identifier! Nobody believes the bulk of the responses (with no OS identifiers) are all non-RH (some will be slack, some debian, some gentoo, whatever), so that's an interesting metric that isn't definitive.

I think I understood completely. Attempting to derail into some form of "RH can be replaced" discussion, is of no interest to me.

This discussion didn't seem to pan out any better than previous attempts to verify that there is a more prolific distro.
Calling RH a marginal player is simply disingenuous, as of today.

Comment: Re:DebianNoob (Score 1) 450

by Jack9 (#48346287) Attached to: Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

I see:

I guess it can take years with sponsorship. That's a pretty hefty bar. I do think it's a little biased toward inactives, but that's common for this kind of system and I certainly don't think it changes the characterization of why Joey is out.

Comment: Re:DebianNoob (Score 1) 450

by Jack9 (#48345379) Attached to: Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

> I'm a FreeBSD/OpenBSD user, some of the development of Nginx was done in FreeBSD, and you don't even see packages for it in your list. See the flaw in your methodology?

No, I don't. Reduced earnings isn't an indicator of reduced use. Poor Debian at 0!
EC2 alone guarantees Debian installations are vastly outnumbered, unless you can show me some data to the contrary.
There are some marketplace images for server setups that are specifically Debian.
I mean give me something, anything to point to, not just "red hat isn't making enough money".

Comment: Re:DebianNoob (Score 1) 450

by Jack9 (#48343641) Attached to: Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

I know this is off topic but...

> When RH (which is, both in business model and revenue, a small player in the IT panorama)

I continue to hear this and see absolutely no evidence of it. I see evidence to the contrary, in the US, India and Europe, over the last 20 years.
Generally, it's RPM/RH that is first listed. It's not alphabetical. This isn't because they are lucky. The simple explanation is that RH is the most frequently used and therefore put at the top as a simple matter of UI layout (most common choices go to the top of a list, within reason).

Let's just pull some random packages out of the web -

RH nearest top: (rpm mentioned before deb)

Debian nearest top:

This is a fun game, pick me a list that shows more Debian love!
I would like to keep a pulse on things but I just don't see this assertion (that RH is the marginal market) bearing out as anything but wishful thinking.

Comment: Re:DebianNoob (Score 4, Insightful) 450

by Jack9 (#48343601) Attached to: Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

> So in other words the massive egos are butthurt that in a FOSS environment the USERS get a say in things?

I think that's an unfair characterization.

Any USER can join the technical committee. How is it constructive to have a TC vote bypassed on an issue on the basis of a TC member similarly rejecting the process, as a method to bypass an unfavorable outcome? The toxicity is not the community, it's the process. Once set (by the constitution), it has been effectively unalterable. I do not DISAGREE with this process, I simply recognize the unfairness of it all, from his point of view.

Those "egos" are the egos of people who are part of the technical committee. As Joey asks, why even have one now? Well, because it's taken time to get to this point and it just happened to be close to a release. He thinks technical decisions should be limited to the TC and anything related to those decisions (like the following practices) should also be from the TC. It's not just about this one incident, it's about a consistent waste of time in the TC that he worked to be a part of. He doesn't want to be a USER level contributor either, so he's walking. It's just altogether unfortunate that the community no longer fits his tastes and it's not uncommon for people to leave commercial jobs under the same circumstances.

Comment: Re:DebianNoob (Score 2) 450

by Jack9 (#48342597) Attached to: Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

> I disagree strongly about this being an "implementation detail",

I'm not making an argument against or for any position within the Debian groups. I was trying to understand and articulate the context (I'm wrong a lot). I'll submit that my personal opinion (being a non-Debian user since 2000) does not matter. I'm speaking about Joey Hess' position. If a distro uses systemd or not will be 1 factor in my decision making regarding what distros I choose to use. JH is not taking a stand about the Debian direction (evidenced by the process). He's abandoning Debian's current heading rather than trying to "right" the ship, toward what he thinks is proper.

Comment: Re:DebianNoob (Score 5, Informative) 450

by Jack9 (#48341739) Attached to: Joey Hess Resigns From Debian

Based on what I've read....

His departure has to do with the interruptions to the release cycle by introducing arguments about technical minutia in sub-projects as requiring a GR vote to decide. Technical arguments being decided by the ignorant masses, versus the specific groups (which anyone from the GR can join) who have the specific job of making those decisions. At least that's one way to look at it.

This is not the first time and probably will not be the last that Debian technical decisions will be handed up to the popular vote, completely subverting the whole specialized delineation of teams within Debian. GR votes are being taken (again) for the specific purpose of avoiding losing a technical argument by appealing to a larger group, which also impacts the Debian release cycle. Normally, such votes would be delayed in the interest of the distro, but this is allowed by the Debian constitution. I would believe, such an act (appealing to the GR) was supposed to be limited to hotly debated and controversial topics (like systemd) but not implementation details (which is what is happening)...much less so close to the release date.

He is stating that he expects it to continue. He's not interesting in taking up this fight as a call to amend the constitution. He obviously feels alone in calling out that it's counterproductive to argue over details so close to a release. He's just done with a community that cares about who wins arguments or following strict process procedures rather than respectfully, making deadlines that users and commercial interests depend on (or at least use as an indicator of a stable project).

"Free markets select for winning solutions." -- Eric S. Raymond