Regardless, you are already skipping ahead. What do you want to use for material? We might as well use the same material throughout. So if you want to use aluminum for source, passive plate, and walls that is fine with me.
We know then, from ESA that the emissivity of aluminum in vacuum is approximately 0.15, and absorptivity 0.05.
I have been too busy to work through this this evening. I'll return tomorrow, if I'm not still too busy. I haven't even looked at your other posts.
TFC was the game.
It seems like that problem would be most simply solved by creating a command line tool called 'parallel' that lets you run several commands in parallel, and then returns when it is done. Something like 'parallel cmd1 cmd2 cmd3.'
A wrapper, which can be written as a shell script itself, would look for dependency information in the init scripts, probably in a comment or perhaps in a variable. When the wrapper runs, it checks the status of any required init scripts which share the same first line, using the functionality built into each init script. If they are all running then it fires off the daemon and exits. Else, it blocks if it is critical or not if it is optional, and either way it loops and waits for deps for a decent amount of time. If it is critical the boot process is interrupted, if it is optional then something else happens (script-dependent.) Dependency information could also be stored in a variable in a config file (e.g. in
-Bake in more advanced log processing to mitigate the need for log analysis tools.
What was wrong with log analysis tools? One can bang them out with perl in a minute or two.
No, it really isn't. Process creation is cheap on Unix, and the shell will not only be cached during boot, but one or more copies of it will be present in memory at all times. Running the shell hundreds of times today is a triviality compared to running the shell dozens of times on Unix machines from the 1980s, on which that was in fact not a big deal, because process creation is cheap on Unix. This is just not a real consideration for any modern system, especially given the plethora of lightweight shells available for low-memory or otherwise limited systems.
Sequential startup of services is silly when many can be started in parallel.
This is really the argument that something new was needed, but frankly, it would have been simple enough to handle this without a whole new init system. A shell script wrapper would probably have done this job. Some distributions are already recording dependencies in init scripts; sequence information would be simple enough to add. If this is the best argument for systemd, and so far as I can tell it is that, then it's a really crap argument.
Great! That is all we need. More fragmentation in the community! As if choosing a distro wasn't confusing enough as it is for newcomers!
It should be relatively simple to create tools to permit systemd to automagically support normal Unixlike config files.
THIS is the reason why Linux will never be a mainstream desktop.
The truth is that nobody but Ubuntu has ever really tried for the mainstream desktop, and they have serious flaws involving ignoring their users; Microsoft and Apple already fill that niche.
If special tools mean making your own OBDII cable, and loading one of the dozen or more software packages onto a PC or laptop to interface with the onboard computer...I guess so. Then again I must be old, after all, I remember when people looked at making their own OBDII connectors because it was fun.
Think that there is a relationship?
Or is is far more likely that all of them using Windows, combined with using off-shore admin/coding, specifically India where the 60 rupees to $1 means that their engineers are making less than $10K / year, the far more likely route?
My bet is that the idiots, combined with those who are doing the bribes, continue to push the idea that it was an American inside job.
You should ask Google for a refund.
Europe has only had 100 years to mess things up.
The Ottomans and all of the other Islamic empires are much more responsible for what state the Middle East is in today. Why can't the 3 factions in Iraq get along? Why can't the factions in Lebanon get along? Why can't the factions in Syria get along. Why does Egypt despise the Gazans just as much as the Israelis do?
This probably has more to do with the 1000+ years these territories spent under the control of various Islamic empires ending with the Ottomans.