Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Simple (Score 1) 157

Why do you think ntpd provides only seconds or minutes accuracy? This is certainly not true.

Oh, you probably haven't had the problem. But for some the problem is relatively commonplace: NTPd after some time starts refusing to sync time. And no matter what you do (restart HW, restart NTPd, sync manually, and restart again everything) that POS would still within hours again start refusing to sync the time.

And when the NTPd refuses to sync time, the skew easily rises into the minutes. On some buggy virtualizations - even more. (I have said hours - because some VMware versions/configurations I have seen seem to have a bug in time implementation, where guest runs faster(?) by about 1 minute per hour. 2 days uptime == 20-30 minutes of time skew.)

In the same configuration under the same conditions, the OpenNTPd runs just fine.

The f***ed up configuration and documentation of the official NTPd was the main reason why people have actually developed the OpenNTPd. If NTPd was perfect, nobody would have even bothered.

Comment Re:Simple (Score 2) 157

It can now keep your clock within 10 milliseconds between syncs. Still not as good as the official NTP.

Depends on your perspective.

To me it is: 10ms with the OpenNTPd vs seconds if not minutes with the official NTPd, which occasionally blankly starts logging some errors or warnings like "oops shit, not syncing anymore".

Official NTPd is capricious as hell. And the documentation is just horrible.

I generally replace it with OpenNTPd which "just works". Because, at the end of the day, I can live probably even with 25ms skew, but the seconds/minutes of official NTPd is just unacceptable.

Comment Re:Fragmentation... (Score 1) 378

Sleep and suspend, outside the white-box laptops, pretty much never worked for me on Windows (2000, XP, 7). That's at least 4 home-built PCs. First one I thought I have messed up with the parts. But for the later ones I have specifically looked for the the parts officially supported by Windows. And still no dice.

On Linux, it is historically hit and miss. On earliest systems, the sleep and suspend were not supported at all. Later, when Linux started warming up to the laptop support, it still generally didn't worked for me (but I also haven't specifically tried the distros which officially claimed to support the suspend). These days, Linux' sleep/suspend support (on Xubuntu) generally works for me without problems.

The last PC I have built, Windows fails to come out of the sleep/suspend. With hybrid suspend it takes ~5 minutes before Windows reverts to resume from hibernate and finally starts. The (X)Ubuntu 12.04 and 14.04 have no problem with the PC whatsoever: both sleep and suspend worked out-of-box without a hitch.

P.S. To the problem with the controllers SteamOS had, I can probably relate. In office I have several custom USB devices and corresponding applications which misbehave after suspend. The applications open the devices and keep them open. After suspend, it seems that Linux tries to "replug" the devices, but the device nodes are locked by the applications. Consequently, the kernel (or udev?) assigns to them new device nodes. Applications do not work, because devices have "disappeared". Restart of application doesn't help because the device nodes are not there. One has to stop the application, unplug the devices, replug the device and start application again. From perspective of the software developer, it is a rather underdeveloped area in Linux: detection and handling in application of coming out of the suspend. On Linux there is precisely zero ways to reliably detect that the system just came out out of the suspend. One has to resort to stupid unreliable hacks like the polling of CLOCK_BOOTTIME.

Comment Used the prev version on Windows.... (Score 2) 167

Hoped for a decent fast Git client, but what I got is a pile of stinking hipster UI: flat, non-discoverable and very very rudimentary. Worst part: it is white, not dark. The lack of basic features, combined with the fugly UI, made me in the end uninstall it.

On Windows I'm using mostly the command line client (the git-bash msys based thing).

N.B. Tellingly, after the GitHub client, I started loving the official "git gui".

Advices about a better Git UI for Windows (corporate friendly, aka portable or doesn't require installation) are welcome.

Comment Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score 1) 254

Sadly, most modern UI/UX guys are retarded. Whether they be at Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, etc., they all think that form is the only thing that matters, functionality be damned.

They are not retarded.

They simply have no f***ing idea what UI and UX are.

But that shit isn't new. The GUI design of the past always veered in the direction: design is just a beautiful static picture. The difference is that back then computers had no power or resources to make the UIs to look like that. But today they do.

Finally, the typical IQ of the marketing department and the responsible for the buying decisions seals the deal: choosing between quirky UI which customer needs and beautiful design which looks great on the front page of the product brochure has never being a dilemma.

Comment Re:Piss off- text of her blog which was taken down (Score 2) 229

static analysis of Oracle XXXXXX

Somebody should explain the idiot that the advanced tools for the code analysis are capable of checking (and instrumenting) the binary compiled code already for at least a decade.

When in the past I used the Rational Purify on the applications linked against the Oracle client, there were more that 200 Purify warnings coming from the Oracle libraries, and that before the main() was even reached. Draw conclusions yourself.

P.S. A global public variable - by all indications `int count;` - in the Oracle client libraries for Linux was just topping on the cake.

Comment Re:Firefox 1.0 (Score 1) 113

I know this is a totally vague question, but it went from slim to bloated fast.

It rarely if ever has anything to do with the extensions or plug-ins. (From my perspective anyway.)

On one side, they rewrite more of the browser functionality in the JavaScript.

On the other side, they throw more and more memory to speed up the JavaScript executions, since it has become the bottleneck, since they decided to write more stuff in the JavaScript.

As for the plug-ins and extensions, the whole concept of Fx (compared to the original Mozilla) was "let's outsource as much as possible functionality to extensions" with the effect that some functionality - with the issues it brings - were simply removed from browser into the extensions. Had they kept the functionality in the browser, they could have integrated it deeper and better. Today, blaming the extensions writers is simply unfair and short-sighted: they fill the functional gaps which Fx intentionally choose to introduce by removing the functionality from the browser. (E.g. Mozilla had a built-in AdBlock - Fx doesn't. And one of the reasons I stayed with the Mozilla for the whole time was the ad blocking.)

Comment No shit. (Score 1) 327

Disclaimer: the study was funded by Adblock Plus.

Well, they needed the study for that.

You could have also asked any long-term power-users from the times of dial-up Internet.

Back then I ran a NAT + Squid web proxy + custom ad-cutting rules in Squid, and it was reducing the amount of traffic by pretty hefty margin. In fact, it was so much, that some ad-laden web sites were actually becoming responsive. And no endless "Waiting for ..." messages in the status bar. (Granted, pretty quickly the ad agencies invested in the capacities and stopped being the bottleneck, but still they were a huge drain on the bandwidth.)

Today, I use AdBlock with rather long list of JavaScript blocking rules. Makes some unusable web-sites actually useful. Previously it was the limited bandwidth of the modem lines. Today it is literally seconds some websites take to render (while CPU is at 100% load; that actually bothers me more). The only problem that in the past I could reliably block the offenders, today I cannot: JavaScript and HTML5 shit is totally different ballpark and at times I wish all the hipster "web-developers" would just die.

Comment Re:Win7 is likely to be my last Windows (Score 1) 302

Under Windows you have Autohotkey, which I used for a number of things in the XP days such as hotkeys to change display gamma, sound volume, instantly launch a terminal etc.

A fellow AHK user here too.

Windows is ridiculously crippled for some things but it can have its own very powerful things. Another example was a freeware to minimize windows to the system tray, it could be configured so that a middle click on the minimize button does it. Under linux this will be impossible, funnily, or non trivial to do and it's certainly desktop or WM specific.

Frankly, I never had this kind of problems under Linux.

For simple reason that on Linux virtual desktops are standard feature since early days, and allow you to manage any number of applications, spread any number of desktops.

Better yet, they allowed since early days to have literally a direct keyboard shortcut to the desired application (or combination of applications): a shortcut to switch to the virtual desktop where the application is running. (For which Win-<n> is really a poor substitute.)

On Windows, you have everything packed on single screen, into a single task bar. Anything helping to manage this mess helps. But on Linux, the problems the tricks solve often have better solutions or simply non-existent.

But sure as hell, AHK on Linux would have been nice. But I mostly use it on Windows to "fix" the "broken" applications. E.g. I can play/pause VLC with a mouse click on the video, something I would definitely miss after the move to Linux. (But it is not all that bad. There are also GUI automation tools under Linux: Autokey (an attempt to reimplement the AHK on Linux), wmctrl, xdotool.)

Comment Re:Win7 is likely to be my last Windows (Score 1) 302

There is nothing that you can do in Bash that can't be done easier and faster in PowerShell. I guess you're just not a programmer so you don't understand it.

Man, I do Unix (and shells) for something like 15 years now. Before that 5 years Windows.

From all your words I can see that you simple failed to grasp what Unix shell is.

And yes, you can do image manipulation directly in PowerShell. It gives complete access to the entire Windows API.

Which is the whole point of the suckage of the PowerShell.

And the quirky syntax, as if they wanted to make sure that the developers would suffer just like they did with VB.

This is how I know you've never touched it. You don't even know basic information like this. Just stick with your simplistic UNIX shell, because you're obviously incapable of handling PowerShell.

I did actually handled PowerShell, though stupid security policies make it a non-starter in enterprise and limit its usefulness to developer workstations. You can't run PS1 files out of box == Universally useless.

Otherwise, I have failed to see anything new in the PowerShell beside the retarded reinvention of the "host VB".

They had a clean start - a rare and real chance to do it right - and they still have came up with that atrocity.

And even at the VB emulation, the Perl with Win32::OLE beats PowerShell handily. Because it is real programming language and the Win32::OLE gives pretty much unlimited access to every Windows capability.

Comment Re:Win7 is likely to be my last Windows (Score 1) 302

Never heard of PowerShell, eh? Bash is extremely weak and lame by comparison.

LOL. Heard. Tried. Dismissed it. Definitely a tool for VB aficionados.

Anyone comparing a Unix shell to PowerShell is either illiterate or hasn't mastered the Unix shell. (Especially Bash, which not only Turing complete (aka "real programming language") but in recent version even supports the associative arrays. IMO redundant, but nice.)

Also, what does any of this have to do with the look of the GUI? Move goalposts much?

It's not the look of the user interface. It is about how the different user interfaces change what information is accessible via them.

Even your PowerShell, for example, when working with files, as retarded as that whole idea is, provides much much more meta data to crunch compared to the GUI of the (file) Explorer. But PowerShell, no matter how hard you try, can't display the thumbnails of the image files.

Comment Re:Win7 is likely to be my last Windows (Score 1) 302

because you rarely see the OS anyway

That is true of any area of work, if you are working correctly.

Not so fast.

Under Linux, a terminal with the standard shell is immensely powerful tool.

On Windows there is simply no alternative. And if you use the huge big name tool - PhotoShop or Visual Studio - then the OS is useless to you anyway, since Windows provides only bare/no tools for the specialized tasks. And the big tools tend to eventually reimplement huge chunks of the OS inside of them, making the user often oblivious to the OS.

On Linux, you (can) have bunch of command line tools. And you can do (and automate) one hell out of literally any specialized (or generic) task using the same OS interface: the shell.

Taking DTP as an example, one of the first times I have seen Linux outside my office was a publishing agency. They had used the GIMP scripting interface from the command line to automate processing of the huge batches from the photoshoots. (PhotoShop gained the batch capabilities much much later.)

Under Windows, it might be true that seeing the OS means you are doing something wrong or inefficiently. But under Linux, the OS is a huge bonus.

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?