Landmines kill little kids without asking. Do we want more things killing automatically?
Landmines kill little kids without asking. Do we want more things killing automatically?
I miss the simplicity of the bsd-like init config scripts sitting on top of SysV in Arch, before they adopted systemd. So much could be configured from rc.conf, the daemon commands were simple, and I never had problems booting. gah
Yielding the power of UNIX has always laid in creating your systems inittab file, I thought everyone did that. I used to look upon rc scripts as an unnecessary complication of the system and wondered why they were there. If a service needs to be up, init makes sure it's up. If you want to take the service down, tell init to take it down. vim
Network services, is good example, a shell script handled by rc, is a prime candidate for an init controlled service. Getting init to kick of printer services after a short delay so that CPU time is focus on providing a GUI to a user could be another. Messaging system is a perfect example.
What about using runlevel 4 for your customised system state, 3 for shell level maintenance, 5 for GUI level maintenance? How about an ondemand runlevel?
Just learn how to use init *actions*, which is a lot simpler than systemd. Simple, scarily powerful and totally under utilised in Linux.
After spending some time with systemd writing unit files and playing around with jounalctl my sense is that this entire situation would be resolved with a set of small tools that manipulate inittab files properly that could support a GUI based inittab editor, thus complementing/completing the original design philosophy with a small maintainable set of tools that rpm, yast, apt-get could utilize. I wonder if people would be interested in such a thing? Perhaps it's time to contact the Devuan people.
I can agree with systemd supporters that the rc system is crap, however that still isn't init and systemd is as monolithic as the rc system, except it's compiled. I think the main objection to the idea of systemd is init is a core idea of the UNIX Operating System that is powerful. I've never seen a Linux distribution that uses init properly and essentially the argument is to replace a core idea of a stable operating system platform because people just don't understand how to use UNIX's most powerful concept one step removed from the kernel. Fast and lean!
The funny thing is, after all these years, I still haven't got everything I can get out of init. Do you understand what you are destroying systemd guys?
Has anyone got a use case yet?
SysV and the flusterfuck dyslexic script hackery behind SysV was a constant nightmare with a mountain hardware complaints leading back to it.
Even so the clusterfuck of rc scripts in most redhat derivatives was Red-Hat's creation. People aren't using init, via inittab, properly and now the reason cited to replace init is because the rc system, and the script hackery behind it created by red-hat is disliked. Keh?
Wouldn't a better rc system work better?
Here is a thought, why not learn how to use the shell properly so that shell hackery is not required. Or another idea, learn how to implement design patterns in bash/sh/ksh/zsh. Init is a simple elegant idea, people are arguing for it's removal because they aren't skilled enough writing *shell scripts*. It seems a bit silly to me that people who can't write something so simple have any business modifying the way the OS initializes.
It would be great to get Ken Thopson's opinion on the situation.
However, since we have the attention of many systemd advocates, can someone please throw a use case at me that init doesn't satisfy that systemd does? I'm really trying to understand why it is supposed to be better than something that is as tested as init. I don't mind using it, but why it is supposed to be so compelling?
Not that I should make an appeal to authority
but that is exactly what you are going to do.
or that you should trust me solely based on my credentials,
I'm a reasonable, smart guy. I trust facts and evidence, science, where available, any published law I can find, policy, organizational charters, studies, conference minutes. I'll consider any information you present, including its likelyhood for bias.
but since you "called me out" for not understanding it I will inform you that I am a trained nuclear engineer working in the nuclear industry,
Great, I'm happy to defer to your knowledge of reactor operations if I want to learn more about Accident Sequence Precursors or Basis Design Issues. However I don't see how that is relevant if we are talking about biology and the way radioisotopes are absorbed and concentrated in the food chain. Are the metabolic processes that absorb radio-isotopes into the food chain part of the studies to be a Nuclear Engineer?
I was calling you out on the oversimplification of the facts. To highlight the oversimplification, where does your comic make the destinction between internal and external radiation exposure, or what happens to the energetic levels of a radio isotope inside the body when it is organically bound?
By not disclosing your position, you are not disclosing your bias towards defending the interests of your profession and employer when providing it. It seems pretty disingenuous to me to placate everyone from an implied position of independence, whilst maintaining a undisclosed bias. And being pretty rude and condescending about it too.
I note your freak, quick to judge I see. I have some doubt that you can conduct a civilized conversation without acting if everyone is stupid for not understanding your point of view because your having a hissy fit when a differing one is offered. Your not the only smart person here and if you don't have the patience to defend your point of veiw when challenged then it must be pretty fragile.
I'll get to answering your other points as I get time over the next couple of days.
All of the waste of fission reactors are contained in the cladding. You actually get more radiation exposure living next to a coal plant, since the heavy metals are released into the atmosphere.
Which is also has not been subjected to any enrichment by nuclear industry processes. I specifically referred to artificially made elements.
but you cannot say that the environment has any alpha-emitting radionuclides that you can accidentally get into your body and worry about.
Yes I can, I just don't know how much of them Fukushima, Chernobyl or other accidents have released.
TL:DR stop spreading irrational fear about nuclear fission power plants.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's irrational. What you're doing is how social proof spreads ignorance.
If you were discussing what an iron analogue was and how bio-accumulation in the environment worked, then perhaps you could say that. From my perspective though it appears that you are skipping the complexity of how that works and instead transmuting your idealized version into a belief system that has little to do with the reality of how radio-isotopes are concentrated in the food chain.
Ignoring a body of knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
What is your problem with my statement?
It's an over-simplification. The reality is more complex.
Clean is misleading here
But we need to get around the same stigma that has hamstrung fission reactors - that "radioactive" means "cancerous death" to the electorate.
Snowballs thrown... no, YOU'RE misleading!!!
But seriously, people like you are the true problem. Everyone else, let's try to understand the actual facts about radiation. Obligatory xkcd:
Actually you are being unintentionally misleading. Certain radioisotopes can be ingested via metabolic processes, for example plutonium chloride is very water soluble and is readily absorbed. Within the body the radioisotope continues to emit radiation and some become organically bound to cells and other parts of the body and that's when the damage occurs, cumulative, slowly and, over time.
Dempending on what and where the radioisotope gets deposited, it eventually means cancerous death for some however it can also mean disease that manifests in the next generation ( transgenic) because of damage it does to the DNA of unborn children.
That's why these artificially made elements don't belong in the environment and keeping them contained is a question of how good our engineering is.
Personally I'm hoping Fusion works because it will produce far less waste products than the industrial processes of Fission reactors.
Everyone else, let's try to understand the actual facts about radiation. Obligatory xkcd:
Radionuclides emit radiation. What you need to understand is the behaviour of radionuclides in the environment. Until you do xkcd comics are only going to explain external radiation exposure to you. The difference between internal and external exposure is one damages you and the other probably won't do much of anything to you.
What radionuclides do in the body and how they get there is the understanding required, you insensitive clod.
What would a union do? Strikes don't happen at government-regulated utilities the same way they do at a wholly private company.
They would lobby politicians at state and federal levels so that strikes are unnecessary.
Another thing I imagine a union *could* do is negotiate with employers so that H1B visas are implemented more equitably. There maybe a genuine need for them however that shouldn't mean that young local talent should be denied opportunities to get a foot hold with their careers, a union *could* negotiate on their behalf. It could also anonymously by-pass gag orders such as these so that the truth about the conditions are know. It could also look at stale, but talented people and identify what training the need to secure new opportunities.
Whilst it has been unpopular to talk about IT unions it's probably time to step out of the outmoded thinking that suggests that any IT union would be the same as a union that deals with unskilled professionals. We are not, and I can't see IT professionals in a picket line. I can see them being smart enough to take a long view with issues and have an union defend their interests. Individually we have no power and the types of laws we are being subjected to suggest we are not taken seriously as other professionals who have organizations that look after their political interests.
I feel it's a little naive to think we are all so special and great that we don't need anyone arguing for us within the upper echelons of power. Taking the worst fears of what a union is and suggesting that is an argument for not having them is why we are in the situation we are now. We should be looking to the behaviors we want in a union and charter it so that's how it behaves. We either shape our future or have it shaped for us.
UEFI is accessible for change. Note the standard doesn't demand that 'getting bricked' be possible, it's the firmware developer implementations that have issues.
Right now the efi variables are normal files:
Thanks, I've not paid enough attention to this, I'm glad it didn't catch me.
So my proposal would be either to make each something like a character device, with special ioctl for 'deletion', or a normal file, except ignore 'unlink()' and provide a separate character device with ioctl to remove the variables, or some 'echo delete Boot000 > whatever' type interface. The latter is probably the best all things considered.
It seems reasonable, especially as it would offer a degree of protection against shitty UEFI implementations.
The whole acess to the variables space is already an abstraction, so efivars can do whatever they want (though would break downstream utilit(ies) expecting to be able to unlink, but I think that's worth the work. A utility can be backward compatible by checking for existence of new interface, and falling back to unlink should that new remove interface be missing.
Indeed, breaking a few utilities is a small price to pay so you can't brick a motherboard. Software can change.
cats didn't suddenly arrive in a predator-free situation (exceptions noted for isolated islands where medium and larger predators failed to arrive or evolve -- remember the species already there invaded too, if much longer ago).
This is exactly what has happened in my locale.
And cats generally don't survive away from human influence. Other predators think they're very tasty and all too easily caught. Cripes, in the desert I couldn't grow cats fast enough to keep the owl and coyote buffet stocked. Every cat that went outside the fence got eaten.
Where I live, every cat that gets into the wild, breeds more cats. I used to hunt to help the farmers out (mainly with wild rabbits, goats, pigs and foxes) and they would carry a ball pean hammer to deal with the nasty little bastards.
Cats are very successful predators here and there are too many of them killing off the parrots, marsupials.
And considering that in an urban or suburban setting you will have either free-roaming cats, or assloads of rats and mice, which do you choose??
We have several species of owls, kookaburras, kingfishers, hawks, magpies and surprisingly, ducks, that all love to eat mice and rats
Maybe you'd prefer to import weasels, foxes, and skunks. Rabies ahoy!!
We have a lot of foxes, pythons already. Hunting fox is pretty hard and kind of funny
Funny how the same people who decry free-roaming cats usually support "wolf reintroduction" in the western U.S.
I don't. I think it's fucking stupid. Here it's people saying that about saltwater crocodiles and if you've ever seen a 5 metre croc jump out of the water you understand primal fear. So wolf's - no - it's a bad idea as well.
You ask for citations but haven't provided them yourself. You freely admit to not reading the citations when that are provided. You can criticize my numbers but they were provided for people to lazy to do the work themselves. If you don't like the frame of reference I've provided, so that you have to do less thinking, provide the math yourself. You have the references, go dig out the peta joules figures for decommissioning and do the work for yourself.
Where are your numbers for AP1000 lifetime output in peta-joules?
Go look up the NRC's definition.
We can't realistically get rid of the old reactors until we get new reactors built.
Or maybe I'm more familiar with how complex modern(ish) aircraft are.
And perhaps I am more familiar with the relevant aspects of how complex the Nuclear reactors are. You are the one who wants to talk in car analogies.
Except of course that we now have a bunch of them still operating that are older than that.
Citation please - where are this bunch of functioning 60 year old power reactors?
I think you're full of it.
Considering your last statement, that's quite ironic. If you have a valid argument, then back it up with some facts of your own.
I'm trying hard not to be as rude to you as your are being to me. Read my sig, I'm not talking about my ism's. Your welcome to your opinion however despite your numerous calls for citations, which were provided, you are yet to provide any of your own - or any work of your own whilst admitting you haven't even examine the citations you asked for in the first place.
"For the man who has everything... Penicillin." -- F. Borquin