Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: I don't need it. (Score 1) 805

by Lisias (#47753865) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

I'm responsible for a bunch of servers now.

One of them has a uptime of 660 days. Other, 120 or about it. My server with the lower uptime has 35 days - it has 37 days of life, by the way.

I'm not slightly interested on the booting speed of these machines - my main concern is the speed of the diagnostic procedures I need to carry on when something goes wrong.

God saves the runlevel 1.

Comment: Re:What was wrong with OpenRC? (Score 1) 805

by Lisias (#47753817) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

The question is what was wrong with OpenRC?
It's flexible enough to do just about all the useful tasks that sysV and that systemd does.

We really don't want a kernel in user space unless you want Linux to become infected with the finder syndrome of MacOSX.

That's the problem: it's too damn flexible, it's too damn practical, it's too damn EASY to maintain. How in hell a big enterprise will be able to profit on such environment?

Corporations need hard to maintain, almost impossible to learn systems deployd on their customer's machines in order to keep them under their grasp.

It's what is happening with systemd? I don't know. But I know the past, and this is the path that Microsoft, Oracle et all choose to follow - and this was not by accident.

Comment: Re:Fk proprietary consoles. (Score 1) 97

by Lisias (#47749949) Attached to: Hackers Claim PlayStation Network Take-Down

I wrote a tool back in the day that would boot anybody off any Quake 1 server (except CMU guys off CMU servers - they actually knew how to protect their networks). It was great!

So it was you? Bastard! :-)

Jokes aside, we setup our own server - you would have to portscan half the Internet in order to find our server to DDoS us. :-)

Setting your own game server is Quake 1's most missed feature to me, the rocket jump being the second! :-D

Comment: Re:The problem, as always... (Score 2) 329

by Lisias (#47744411) Attached to: ACM Blames the PC For Driving Women Away From Computer Science

We need to work on ways to improve our self confidence and the rest will follow.

Why do you *NEED*?

Why the statistical spread of man and womans *NEED* to be equal on the various fields of human knowledge and/or work?

EVerybody must, or at least, should, be able to choose whatever he/she wants - if she/he is able to do so. What I don't get is the use of the verb "NEED".

Why wornens *NEED* to work on I.T.?

Comment: Re:Should of never got rid of other OS and outsorc (Score 1) 97

by Lisias (#47744349) Attached to: Hackers Claim PlayStation Network Take-Down

Script kiddies attacking PSN doesn't affect Sony as much as it affects the users that play online or pay for the service.

If they manage to repeat the deed next week, you can bet you gamepad it will affect Sony.

Mainly because I don't see MSN Live players complaining about loss of service, do you? XBox owners don't have any reason to fear losing next weekend services, while PSN users will live the week worrying about.

Comment: Re:Linus wants the Desktop? (Score 1) 725

by Lisias (#47743927) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

Dealing with humans is harder than dealing with the kernel.

And yet, cars and airplanes and bicycles and a lot of other tools (some more complicated, some less) are still being engineered by engineers.

I don't see a link here, sorry.

Dealing how they interact with a computer is quite a bit different. It is an entire research subject.

Dealing with (some) corporate egg headed's wishes on how people should use a computer is that it's quite different.

Common People are using computers since the 80's. Some metaphors sucked a lot, some others was successful (and some, besides sucking). The break even point was simple: I work/play/whatever better now that did yesterday?

Cars use steering wheels and pedals since Ford's era, besides a lot of research on new ways to drive a car. Did you ever considered why?

GNOME 3's deployment could have gone better. It would have been better to allow people to parallel install both and let them move when they were comfortable

That would had helped a lot, indeed.

The design itself continues to be a successful work in progress. Next iteration, I will likely make sure that we don't do it this way.

Successful to whom? You see, people are not all alike.

Let me a bit more succinct. I'm saying that the people who were building Linux based desktops took a lot of their design from windows 95, amigaos, and various other desktops that were there before. All the examples you've stated doesn't invalidate what I said. We took our designs from someone else. The most popular ones are based on windows 95, GNOME and KDE.

Now I see.

Perhaps this happens because is considered BAD ENGINEERING creating something out of the blue just for the sake of it.

There's a good reason cars are still using steering wheels and pedals nowadays - people don't have to be trained and reissued a new driver's license when they sold the old model and buy a new one.

Any nowadays stereo are still using the same metaphors from decades ago (Play, Stop, Next, Previous, Volume Up and Down - even the Eject are still used), and the remote control from my new shining OLED TV has the same buttons my old, ultrasonic, mechanical remote control had (but granted, it has that buttons and a lot more).

Of course modern remote control are a lot more sophisticated and useful that hat old craps, but the basic metaphors are still there - the enhancements were introduced rationally, without breaking current usability.

Why? Because this is considered *GOOD ENGINEERING*.

Nopes. I just asking Linus to step up and LEAD a Desktop project.

The result will probably be not shiny and new and full of [insert your favorite insult here], but it will be usable, and it will works, and more importantly, it will get the job done without hassle - that what matters when the month ends and I have to pay my bills.

Why? What gives him the expertise to run a desktop project, exactly?

Because it's already proven that he is capable of handling successfully huge and complex open source projects.

Just because they are both software projects doesn't mean that he has the ability to lead a group of people working on UI and middleware projects.

Just because he never did it, doesn't mean that he doesn't have the skills neither. However, he's a proven open source leader that delivers solid artifacts, with a nice (but granted, far from perfect) historic of consistency between releases. I prefer to do not make comparisons with some other Open Source projects - there's no need for a jihad here.

I'm not hiring the guy to write code or specify usability requirements. But you can bet your arse I would hire him to lead a critical software project anytime (if I would be on such position, what can be a good idea to state now that I'm not).

I don't think he's remotely interested in running it.

I agree 100% with you here. :-)

Perhaps when I run into him at some conference I'll ask him. Perhaps you can ask him?

Weirdly enough, this never crossed my mind. Perhaps linking this conversation to him?

In any case, I find it amusing that people think Linus is some kind of uber geek.

Me too. The guy is a god damned good engineer with a good leadership skills on Open Source projects. I don't see how his geekness can influence on it - but granted, I'm not entitled to say otherwise.

By the way, I'm not saying he's a polite, nice leader - au contraire, the man can be an ass when pissed on. But again, the guy stills delivers solid artifacts - thanks or besides his assness, I can't say.

Given the personal feedback he's given me, I know that his requirements are fairly modest compared to some.

Being that the(or one of them) reason you stated before that the Kernel is less complicated and easier to keep than a Desktop?

Comment: Re:Linus wants the Desktop? (Score 1) 725

by Lisias (#47743621) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

This would help a lot. First he should write a simple, simple, fast and Unix styled version of systemd. Then replace the network-manager with one that does not pull in half of the Gnome desktop. Then help writing a replacement for CUPS, that would actually work.

How the KDE folks are dealing with this issues?

And make a policy for not breaking compatibility with user on the GUI side (no, you can not suddenly move the window minimize/maximize/close/ -buttons to left side of window, or other insanities).

From my point of view, they can shove =P the buttons where they want. Just give-me the choice to move them back to where I want, and I'm happy.

I've got a bad feeling about this.

Working...