In fairness, I installed Ubuntu *server*. I'd expect it to behave like a server, not a spin of the desktop distribution.
Sometimes you use what the user demands/needs rather than what is the best choice technically. I'm not too fond of Ubuntu on the server either, but there are specific reasons for it in our particular environment that I can't get around.
If there was a way to package an already built gentoo distribution for rollout, I would seriously consider it. (and there may be, I haven't used Gentoo in a long while)
It's not an option for the huge company I work for, though. Most companies want Debian or RPM based systems.
I was using it as an example to show that server workloads are fundamentally different from desktop workloads.
Where did you get the idea that this was about forking the kernel?
Linux (at least in this context) is not only the kernel, it's the whole ecosystem - whatever you call it. I don't think the person who wrote this article was arguing that the kernel should be forked. The only time I'll seriously consider that is if they try to put dbus into it.
I don't see anything wrong with the kernel that a little tuning can't fix. I do see plenty wrong with lots of distributions.
I am a linux sysadmin, and many of the packages required for desktop use not only don't apply to me, but are pretty well useless. I would love to see a distribution where any dependency on X11 was not only stripped out - but *compiled* out. I would love to see a distribution where systemd was not getting its mitts into everything.
But it's not only that, it's tuning. I discovered that Ubuntu's default scheduler settings on a Dell R620 with 384G of RAM and a nice beefy RAID 10 array are actually the *worst* settings for this kind of system. Everything else I tried - other schedulers, tuning CFQ, etc., they all led to better write throughput. Which leads me to wonder how many processor and other cycles are wasted because sysadmins just install with the default settings and hope for the best?
There needs to be a distro where the adults are in charge. I'd even build it if I had time, and I most certainly would be willing to put some time into working on one.
I completely disagree with you. Particularly the last sentence, which, again, is coming close to an ad hominem. I didn't make that argument and I wasn't going to.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens. And that is the way *I* look at it when it comes to my own business, so I won't listen to anyone telling me I'm wrong.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
Indeed. This is not zero-sum. Just because a bad actor does something reprehensible does not mean that there is not an opportunity for education on how to reduce your risk. Don't crack. And don't put yourself in a situation where it's likely you will *be* cracked.
Your last sentence is pretty close to an ad hominem. The GP post is probably a troll. So why I'm posting here is beyond me. Maybe I'm bored.
Here's the thing. It's true that in a perfect world, you should have complete control of what happens to the stuff you post, just like you should have complete control over what happens to your body.
This isn't, unfortunately a perfect world.
Protecting yourself is a virtue, not a vice. And giving advice on how to protect yourself is not necessarily "blaming the victim".
Let me put it another way: to use some analogies that have been put forth in other comments, if there is a place in town where someone gets raped every single night, maybe two or three people, and you deliberately going to that place at night, alone... do you really think it's going to do any good to just tell whomever you encounter "don't rape me?"
When it would never have happened if you'd just not gone?
Protect yourself. Don't do stupid stuff. At the end of the day, you do have *some* control over your circumstances. Don't give up that control just because someone else does something stupid too.
Sure they do. If someone wanted to know where to get more information about the referenced item and buy it, that's added value.
It's only not added value if that's not something you want to do. Just as if, if you are not interested in the stock or its performance, it adds no value for you.
The argument here is not about whether it adds value - it does. The argument is over the type of value it adds, the cost of that value, and whether the added value is worth the cost - which is considerable.
Stock exchanges make money, and trading stocks is a way for companies and investors to make (or lose, but that's not the hope) money. It's an inline ad for the stock of the company being mentioned. A very well hidden inline ad, but an ad nonetheless.
They already do this with things such as stock quotes. They put "Apple" in there, and it automatically adds the ticker symbol, the day's performance, and a link to more information.
I don't see how this is any different.
I stopped listening while he was talking about LibreSSL. This guy is utterly ignorant of why LibreSSL was forked (because the OpenSSL maintainers were not responsive to bug reports and were actively working around memory issue detection), of who was forking it (OpenBSD, Linux has nothing at all to do with it), and what is hoped to be accomplished by the fork.
I just can't pay attention when someone is blabbing about something he has no idea about. Sigh.
Ruby makes sysadmins cry. I tried updating a legacy server yesterday that is running a ruby app. After two hours of trying to make it work, I gave up.