Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 548

by Jane Q. Public (#47814339) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
I had reasons for choosing the variable names that I chose. I am well aware that they are not according to convention. But for just one factor out of several, neither is Slashdot's character handling. Again, just for one example, I used capital E for emissivity rather than epsilon because it shows up well here. And rather than using upper- and lower-case characters for one body vs another, for example, an upper-case letter with subscript() works just fine. I have a couple of other reasons as well, I didn't just say this arbitrarily. At least this way when you refer to what you call the "heated plate" I know which one you mean without ambiguity.

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.

Comment: Re:What's wrong with Windows Server? (Score 1) 287

by drinkypoo (#47813833) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

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 /etc/default) and when not present, the daemon can be treated as critical and blocking. All the other elements of the system remain unchanged, down to symlinks establishing daemon launch order. This requires changes only to init scripts, and even then only for daemons which are expected to launch in parallel. Is there some obvious reason why this wouldn't work?

Comment: Re:Troll much? (Score 1) 287

by drinkypoo (#47813765) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

-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.

Starting up /bin/sh hundreds of times during boot is wasteful and slows boot.

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.

Comment: Re:The Future! (Score 1) 287

by drinkypoo (#47813727) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

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.

Comment: Re: What's wrong with Windows Server? (Score 1) 287

by Mashiki (#47813509) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

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.

Comment: Gee, it must be the HVAC again!!!! (Score 1) 110

by WindBourne (#47813485) Attached to: Banks Report Credit Card Breach At Home Depot
Some of the stupidest ppl elsewhere and here screamed that target was caused by having an HVAC key. So, I guess that HVAC everywhere is making it possible to break into these systems?
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.

Comment: Re:You know .. (Score 2) 475

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.

Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra

Working...