Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Failure tolerance is a mortal sin (Score 4, Insightful) 40

by phantomfive (#47957727) Attached to: 'Reactive' Development Turns 2.0

Obviously the manifesto is so short on details that it can be interpreted in many ways.

Short on detail but long on words. Compare it to the Agile manifesto which has few words, but communicates the ideas very clearly. When you read that, you understand the underlying principles of agile. This manifesto has more words, but still manages to clearly get its idea across.

When it comes to the manifesto linked in the article, as you mention it is short on detail. Specifically, who doesn't want to have a responsive system? Have you ever met anyone who said, "I think I will build a website. I want it to take 15 seconds for the pages to load." Saying you want your site to be responsive is so generic as to be meaningless.

The part that really makes me laugh is the part where they say it will have no bottlenecks. That has been the goal of designers since the day of Von Neumann. He was certain he would design his computer without bottlenecks. Once again, it's something that everyone wants.

The biggest thing they have that isn't generic there is that they require message passing. That seems like a weird requirement to me, but I'm sure they have a reason.

Comment: Re:Methodologies are like religion (Score 1) 40

by phantomfive (#47957691) Attached to: 'Reactive' Development Turns 2.0
I've been thinking about reactive programming a lot recently because it's used a lot in Angular.js. Probably in other javascript frameworks, too. My guess is it'll become more popular in the next few years, then recede into the past (and future, for those who don't remember) if it turns out to be a bad idea.

On the surface it seems easier, because things happen automatically, without having to be explicitely defined. The part I'm struggling with is how to keep the code clean and readable with all this stuff happening automatically. There's probably a way to do it, but I haven't found it yet.

Comment: Re:Comparable? Not really. (Score 4, Interesting) 78

by phantomfive (#47957139) Attached to: Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company?
I read an article recently on exactly that topic, which is probably worth quoting:

The market is fully capable of pricing the fact that Alibaba stockholders don't actually own a direct claim on Alibaba's Chinese assets and can't elect its board. Truth be told, shareholders don't "own" any company; they own whatever rights are specified in the share agreement........

True comfort for shareholders comes not from legal boilerplate, but from incentives. Alibaba founder Jack Ma could take the $22 billion raised Friday and stiff his foreign partners. That's a risk. But his self-interest is otherwise. He wants a strong stock as a currency for acquisitions. He wants stock options to motivate his increasingly global management team. He wants easy liquidity for himself and other insiders. .....

when investors begin to worry about the actual rights specified in a share agreement, it usually means something has already gone seriously wrong.

Alibaba is probably as good as any stock. If things go wrong, things go wrong.

Comment: Re:lets pump the brakes here and analyze. (Score 1) 164

And finally, while i recognize that me mentioning this will probably result in you dismissing anything i say out of hand (if you haven't done so already), regarding your 'homeland' comments/questions... why is there a massive collection of architects and engineers that claim that the official 9/11 story is entirely logically inconsistent and requiring the believer to disregard things like basic laws of physics?

Ok, yeah, that's where you completely went of the rails lol....

"Cui Bono?" is a good place to begin.

A better place to begin is by gathering information. The more information you have, the easier it will be to draw good conclusions. Otherwise you are stuck asking questions like, "why else would they do it?"

Comment: Re:Repeat history (Score 1) 146

by phantomfive (#47954225) Attached to: KDE's UI To Bend Toward Simplicity

Isn't this Gnome, but ten years ago?

No! They are leaving the features, but focusing on making a sensible default, whereas the rest is easily discoverable!

That is how he is describing it, and it is how an ideal UI should be. Gnome on the other hand wants to make anything hard impossible, not discoverable (where discoverable means the user can figure out how to do it).

Comment: Re:Word! (Score 2) 110

by phantomfive (#47952379) Attached to: Data Archiving Standards Need To Be Future-Proofed

Seriously, what's wrong with the MS Word .doc format? Feature complete, stable, lots of free implementations.

Because it's not feature complete (otherwise Microsoft wouldn't keep adding features), it's not stable, and the free implementations aren't completely compatible.

data archiving format in 500 years; but wouldn't be surprised if a good old-fashioned .doc works just fine.

You can have trouble opening a .doc from a few years ago......

Comment: Re:So what's wrong with systemd, really? (Score 1) 377

by phantomfive (#47952111) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Now go tell it to the 100,000s, programmers out there who actually build complex systems.

I don't have to, I do build complex systems.

Essentially, you need proper separation of concerns, otherwise your system will become too unwieldy to handle. That is the basic principle here, and on the surface, it seems like systemD is violating it. As a result, systemD eventually will become a mess (if it hasn't already). Maybe the surface appearance is deceiving, sometimes that happens.

Seriously though, if all you want is an easier way to read through logs, why not just get splunk?

The amount of weight an evangelist carries with the almighty is measured in billigrahams.