Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Are you even aware of SystemD works? (Score 4, Informative) 318

by DrYak (#47931629) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

(Reliable process supervision which cannot be evaded,

cgroups existed before systemd.

the cgroups functionnality existed in the kernel but wasn't really used that much before.
systemd, with its tasks in setup/startup of things can handle the creation of jails during lauch when needed.
whereas current /etc/init.d/apache can't without fumbling of shell scripts.

sane handling of process stdout/stderr

Up to the init script.

And thus each script end up fucking things up in its own original and different way.

proper handling of dependencies at runtime

Already handled by several init systems.

None of which are the original sysvinit.
Either it's relying on LSB-extended script and a different core which starts the scripts. (Debian had a makefile based one)
Or it's an entirely new system anyway like upstart.

socket activation

We call it inetd.

Or cron if it's time-based activation. Or udev if it's hardware based activation. Etc.
Why do we need 83 different way to start some code ?!
Wasn't the whole point of Unix philosophy having one piece of software which concentrates into doing one thing and doing it well?
With systemd, setup/startup/stop/teardown responsibilities are concentrated with PID1 and it's helpers.
Before, you'd have the same concept spread into a dozen of different systems, each only doing part of that functionnality.

I like systemd, it makes my work easier on desktop, on server, on virtual machines, etc. and although it used to have hiccups when it was introduced before in opensuse, by now it has had the time to mature.
no need to bash it. if you don't like it, don't use it.
and perhaps the fact that it's slowly gaining popularity in lots of mainstream distro might be due not because systemd is "a spreading cancer" but because systemd is actually useful and solves real world problem

Comment: Also concentrate it in 1 point. (Score 3, Insightful) 318

by DrYak (#47931529) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

You don't seem to understand how SystemD actually works. The PID 1 is relatively simple -- it uses all sorts of separate (i.e. non-PID 1) helper processes to do all the heavy and complicated lifting.

And another thing I like about systemd:
- it groups into 1 single project: 1 single task (starting-up/seting-up things) that was spread accross way too many different project before.

Before systemd:

Want to start a service during boot-up ? Put it into sysvinit. Except if it's a file system, then it goes into /etc/fstab. Or if it's not a *service* but like of an interface like your terminal that should go into inittab (Except on distribution which do THE EXACT SAME THING but in init.d anyway).
The thing which start is related to actual hardware? the you need to put it into hal, no way we replaced that with udev... except that a few distro put them any way in init.d and thus your hardware might not work when plugged after booting... unless you also duplicate some code into modprobe.conf's post-runs.
And what if conditions for your code to start isn't "boot-up" nor "plug-in" ?
Then put it into inted/tpcd if it's network triggered. Except for code that doesn't work there, because the service needs to be compiled to use libwrap to work this way. So then you'll have to run the service constantly and fumble around with ip filtering to enable/disable it on demand.
Or put it into cron if it's time triggered.
And you need to start a service and the periodically monitor it for failure, and restart and raise alert if it has failed? Well either use an entirely separate custom system like djbdns's daemontools. Or write your own monitoring solution by writing a ton of scripts which tap into all those different ways to start/stop stuff and hope that it works.

And don't get me started about initialising containers (limited fonctionnality, tons of script), brokering access rights around (not really used. lot of interface must run as root and drop privileges, or lot of interface must be world accessible), handling situation as missing configuration or drivers in a system that hasn't fully booted up to the point where the GUI works and the user can fix things from here (huge tons of scripting to achieve way to detect that Xorg is failing and to propose solution to fix drivers)

All this written in shell script which can have their own pitfalls, and every single system using a different syntax.

After systemd:
PID1 and its herd of helpers take care of setup/start/stop/teardown.
Want to do *something*? Write a systemd config file, and describe which trigger (boot, after another service has started, on network, by clock, on device plug, etc.) should start it.
You can even call legacy systems from within systemd (cron can be reimplemented as a systemd service that runs periodically and reads/executes crontab, etc.)

You can have an LXC that is quickly setup. In fact you can quickly create throw-away container to jail any service separately (systemd is the kind of infrastructure that can boot a dedicated LXC jail to run Skype into, with restriction correctly setup so that no hidden backdoor could spy on you).
You can have systemd handle brokering the necessary rights (to the point that plugin an USB stick and having the currently active user access to it isn't a nightmare anymore).

If anything the handling of setup/startup/stop/teardown WAS NOT "unixy" before, it was "have 384 different programme which all do a different part of one single task in subtly different ways".

Comment: fundamentally different (Score 1) 67

by DrYak (#47931105) Attached to: Commander Keen: Keen Dreams Source Code Released

They are fundamentally different.

On one side you have turn-by-turn games, that progress in fixed steps, and thus simply paint the game field by putting varied wall graphics at exact predefined places.
It's really the discrete position on the map and cardinal headings that are specific,
(That's what you get in most classical RPG).
Could very easily be done back then with a few lines of code. The biggest chunk of work came from the *art* to have a big enough choice of wall to draw to make an interesting world (because it's mostly static, you'll be spending a lot of time at the same, and need something nice to look at).

Basically, the graphic engine has a fixed grid on screen and you put different sprites at said fixed grid positions.

On the other side you have game engines that try to have some actual notion of 3D built into them and allow smooth motion, with complete arbitrary position/headings.
(That's what you get in most FPS and real-time RPG like ultima).
There is really require more advanced coding. (With Origin more concentrating on making an imersive game, emphasis on beautiful graphics, and ID concentrating on make their engine fast and responsive, sacrificing any detail necessary for the sake of being able to make a fast paced game).

Basically, the graphic engine use geometric techniques like wolf's raycasting do determine what is visible where, and gives you total freedom (or at least tons more of freedom, as Carmack used limitation to beat Ultima in speed and fluidity).

From a basic visual composition, both categories have a first person perspective.
From a technical point of view, they are designed completely differently.

Comment: Point of comparison (Score 1) 802

by DrYak (#47930719) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

Eventually, even the dumbest of the dumb will realize that it doesn't pay.

The dumbest of the dumb can only realise things are going badly when they can compare with things going well. To realise that the current government fucks everything up require to be able to realise that some things could be a little bit less fucked up, and the reason they are still so bad is the government's fault.

But if a country is shot down into dark ages, that gets much more difficult. See the reports about fugitive who have escaped extremely isolated dictature like North Korea. These people had probably the vague notion that perhaps here in the west, things are going a bit easier that in their country. (That's why they ran away in the first place)
But having so few information means that these people are just completely amazed by how far off their perception of the outside world has been, they knew that things could go in a different, better way. But they weren't able to realise that outside the totalitarian prison things are SO different.

Comment: Re:The end for me (Score 1) 887

by evilviper (#47930673) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

...scratch that. SoylentNews turns out to be just as bad as /. in this regard. They posted this same damn story, too, and the head of the site has stated they don't want to be a tech site at all.

Instead, my last hope rests with pipedot, which is much more like an old-fashioned /. with a focus on sci/tech instead of flamebait crap. Hell, the sci/tech stories even get more comments on pipedot than they do on SoylentNews, which says a lot about the community.

Comment: Re:This isn't scaremongering. (Score 1) 447

by IamTheRealMike (#47929195) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

Not really. Less than 20% Texans are polled to be in support of secession. That falls in line with the national average of all US citizens who want their states to cede

Well yes but watch out for that. When the independence campaign began in Scotland support for a Yes vote was sitting around 20% (I think?). After many months of campaigning it's reached about 50%.

So don't assume that the status quo in the USA will remain. The big difference is that when independence is not actually on offer, there's no real point to answering yes in the polls. Once it becomes possible and people start legitimately campaigning for it, opinions can change pretty fast.

Comment: Re:Not going to be as rosy as the YES! campaign sa (Score 1) 447

by IamTheRealMike (#47928915) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

Imagine how the Scottish feel having to accept crippling austerity to prop up reckless English banks. Yes, obviously RBS is Scottish

Just going to quote this here so readers can ponder this contradiction. RBS was bailed out at huge expense. It is indeed based in Edinburgh and the S in RBS stands for Scotland. So this is a very strange argument to make.

but it's losses were all made in London under weak UK regulation from the Thatcher era.

Ye gods, here we go blaming Thatcher again. You realise she's died of old age, don't you? Labour was voted in on the back of Labour voting Scots multiple times since 1991 and any of them could have changed banking regulations. None of them did. What about "true Scotsmen" like Salmond? Well he strongly supported the disastrous takeover of ABN AMRO that was largely responsible for crippling the bank and directly contributed to tanking the UK economy. In fact not only did he support RBS politically, he actually worked for them for a good chunk of his career.

In short: blaming Thatcher, a dead woman who was not in power for the last 23 years, for the failure of a Scottish bank due to a deal strongly supported by the erstwhile future leader of Scotland, typifies the kind of thinking that is making the Yes campaign seem more and more unreal.

Comment: Re:This isn't scaremongering. (Score 5, Informative) 447

by IamTheRealMike (#47928693) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

Thatcher destroyed manufacturing and industry in the whole of the UK. The north of England and Wales were trashed just as badly. She did that to Scotland, as well as the Poll Tax which caused riots. All the stuff she privatised has gone to shit - energy companies, the railways, British Telecom... Now they see Cameron privatising Royal Mail and the NHS too. Her policies failed utterly and lead to the global financial crash a few years back.

That's the view that sums up the Yes campaign, indeed. But is it realistic?

Let's start with "Thatcher destroyed manufacturing and industry". I find it to be a very misleading way to phrase things. At the time Thatcher came to power, heavily nationalised UK industry was already destroying itself. It had high costs, low productivity, large chunks of it were unprofitable and it was dominated by incredibly militant unions who didn't care about any of this at all, because their wages were being subsidised by tax and the printing of money. Being unprofitable is not some minor debating point. Enormous numbers of people in the UK were being paid to uselessly dig holes in the ground. There was no purpose to this. In the absence of subsidies, nobody would have wanted the rocks that were being dug up. Other people in other countries were doing it better.

And it wasn't just mining. At the time Thatcher came to power the British state also owned shipyards, steel works, a furniture removal company and the Gleneagles Hotel ..... just to name a few.

None of this made any sense. It had happened because the post-war governments believed full employment mattered more than inflation. The result was openly Marxist trade unions realised a weak government with an addiction to money printing could be turned into an ATM via nationally organised strikes. By the 1970's the UK was a basket case. It was suffering electricity blackouts, trash was piling up on the streets uncollected, railways didn't work, even emergency services and hospitals were striking. The country was one of the poorest in Europe and being called "ungovernable". The strikes were wildly unpopular with over 80% disapproval ratings of the strikers being common.

There was no way these industries were ever going to be world-beating titans ever again.

Thatcher was elected to fix this state of affairs, and she did, by making the painful choice to take away the subsidies and start targeting inflation instead of employment.

By the time she left the UK was a stable and prosperous first world nation once again.

Comment: Re:This isn't scaremongering. (Score 2) 447

by IamTheRealMike (#47928531) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

I wonder with 4 million voters who tend to overwhelmingly prefer Labour to Tories gone will Labour eventually cease to be a factor in the UK elections?

Nah. I don't think it'll make much difference in the long run. Labour will simply continue to adopt the policies that make the Tories more popular, and then find other ways to differentiate themselves.

A big part of the reason for the widespread disillusionment with UK politics is that Labour and Conservatives were traditionally very different, with Labour representing the (to use obsolete lingo) proletariat and the Tories being the party of the bourgeoisie. When hard-left economics became totally discredited and abandoned by the mainstream, Labour had to find a new identity. Blair did the most to make the party electable again with his New Labour campaign, but he was only partially successful in his reforms. Once Brown replaced him the party immediately returned to the high spending policies old Labour was traditionally associated with. The public sector increased in size in a fairly short space of time and when the economic crisis hit, Labour couldn't credibly claim they had truly learned the lessons of the 70's. With Scotland's strong preference for voting anything-but-Tory, the result was a (rare, for the UK) coalition government in which the conservatives were left with the rum job of explaining to people why they were paying more to get less.

Ultimately, Labour will complete the reforms started under Blair and old Labour will be consigned to history. If Scotland leaves that process will happen much faster. I don't know what their primary differentiator would be in future but it looks like they might be trying to seize "Higher taxes to pay for the NHS" as their own territory - not a bad strategy, I'd think, although it's one that's easily replicated by other parties too if it proves popular. At any rate, they'll find some way to justify their existence and sometimes that'll be enough to win elections. Then the process will go into reverse and the Tories will struggle to justify why they should replace the incumbents given that their policies are pretty similar.

A lot of people find the new status quo of political parties that mostly agree on things to be somehow indicative of decline or moral decay. I don't really see it that way. I see the politics of the 20th century as utterly dysfunctional - riven with unresolvable ideological divides. Now that Marx has been put behind us, the new politics is about disagreement over relatively small things. This isn't a sign of a society in decline, it's a sign of a society that's largely at peace with itself.

Comment: Re:stupid fear mongering (Score 1) 447

by IamTheRealMike (#47927415) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

He's obviously talking about the short term, not in some possibly long-term future where everything is sorted out.

Blowing off the guys legitimate worries for his business as scaremongering pretty much sums up the entire Yes campaign so far. It's not an argument like, "it's true that the split will be messy painful and could cause recession on both sides, but in the long term it'll be worth it". It's an argument like "everything will be peaches and cream immediately and anyone who says otherwise is a scaremongering bully".

Comment: Re:Not going to be as rosy as the YES! campaign sa (Score 4, Informative) 447

by IamTheRealMike (#47927351) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

You're mixing up currency and currency union. Salmond has been deliberately obfuscating this so the confusion is not surprising, but they are different things.

Post independence Scotland could continue to use the pieces of metal and paper we tend to think of as "the pound". It could still express prices in pounds. The UK cannot stop this nor would it care to do so, even if it could. Scotland can keep the currency.

Currency union is an entirely different matter. Currency union is about decision making and who pays for what in future should things go tits up again. This is not a physical object or landmass that can be split up. It's called a "union" because it involves people working together. This is categorically not on offer because Scotland has shown no preference for economic policies compatible with the rest of the UK, really it's shown the exact opposite. So English people working together with Scottish people to create unified economic policies on this wouldn't really be possible, the disagreements are too deep and English people outnumber Scottish quite significantly. Thus it'd only make sense if Scotland agreed to give up most of the independence it had just won. Otherwise it'd be Greece all over again. Profligate teenager wouldn't even begin to describe it.

There is one situation in which CU could actually make sense - if Scotland strongly and consistently voted for the same economic policies as the UK had, and could be trusted to do so for the forseeable future. However this isn't a Scotland that anyone has been seeing during the independence campaign, so it's hard to imagine things changing anytime soon.

With respect to the debt, I think in the event of independence all the opinion polls suggest the UK will take a firm line. No currency union and they split the debt equally too. It's not up for debate. This is actually a fair position - split the debts and financially each goes their own way - but I doubt Scotland will go for it, and the amount of pain that could result for both sides is quite astronomical. This is why such a large proportion of people don't think independence is worth it.

Comment: Re:This isn't scaremongering. (Score 1) 447

by IamTheRealMike (#47927277) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

How Scotland voted is a matter of historical record - and they have consistently voted for policies so bad that no mainstream political party in any western country supports them any more. The same arguments crop up today, indeed "let's break away from the neoliberal consensus" is one of THE main arguments being made for independence.

When basically every political leader in every country has walked away from such policies because they didn't work, and bringing them back is a keystone of the whole campaign, what else are people supposed to think? Thatcher was decades ago, she is actually dead. People who still blame all their problems on her are as close to "incurable" as seems possible to describe.

BTW whatever happens it looks like at least half of Scotland is going to disagree with it. So even if the vote is for independence, they're hardly "unwilling subjects", especially as they want to keep large parts of the union.

Comment: Re:Not going to be as rosy as the YES! campaign sa (Score 1) 447

by IamTheRealMike (#47927217) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

I think this is one of the most absurd set of arguments I've ever seen.

You know that when Scotland was offered union and accepted it, it was bankrupt. It got wealthy as part of the union. So perhaps Scotland should pay large sums of money to the UK when it leaves for the privilege of being saved from poverty all those centuries ago?

That position makes about as much sense as yours.

It's the opposite of that, right? The UK still exists, so the UK owes those pensions.

To whom? Foreigners who don't have the right to vote any more? OK, then I guess the English will just seize the funds and put them back into a general pot to help offset the shared debt that wasn't taken on board by those same foreigners.

I really hope nobody in Scotland is stupid enough to try the arguments you just put forward for real. That would be a fail of truly epic proportions.

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...