Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:kill -1 (Score 1) 267

by arth1 (#47960967) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

unfortunately there seem to be a load of self-important old school admins who know it all who hate change and disparage other peoples efforts by making dubious "complaints"

The first ones making complaints are the users, if you kill their processes in a reboot. Even if it is was announced weeks in advance, with follow-ups.
The sane thing to do is to make sure you don't have to reboot. Not going the systemd route helps with that.

Comment: Re:kill -1 (Score 2) 267

by arth1 (#47959677) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

The compatibility is a main reason. Being able to run and configure all startup/shutdown processes independently of the overseer is nice. As a sysadmin, I get to do easy manual corrections, additions and deletions without giving init a thought.
i don't have to use the "service" command, and I spend far less time when seting up a new server or adding a service.

i don't give a crap whether the system boots twice as fast - reboots are years between, and in scheduled windows. I want something that lets me admin my systems without relying on anything more than a dumb terminal - and if need be, not even that.

Comment: Re:kill -1 (Score 3, Interesting) 267

by arth1 (#47959335) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Which is why I don't see a systemd fork as a viable alternative. The whole idea is broken, as it breaks with the Unix toolbox approach, where tools work independently, and not as a clusterfuck of apps that engage in social networking under the dictatorship of an object-oriented leviathan.

I have turned down Red Hat EL 7 for my business systems, and install RHEL 6 with vaious 3rd party repos to get new packages, precisely because of systemd.
A leaner fork of systemd just won't do it.
Give me an init that only does init and does it well with a KISS philosophy. And give me hal back - systemd-udev cannot do what it does, which makes RHEL 7 unusable. I don't want a 90% system, when the 10% is used by my business to earn money.

Comment: Re:define (Score 1) 290

by arth1 (#47889105) Attached to: German Court: Google Must Stop Ignoring Customer E-mails

First, advertisers only pay if you click the on the ad.,/quote>
This is not true. Web advertising has three models, which are often used in combination:

1: Referral fee. When an ad leads to a sale, the ad hoster gets a cut.
2: Click-throughs. When an ad is clicked, the ad hoster gets a fee.
3: Impressions. When an ad is displayed, the ad hoster gets a smaller fee.

Paying for impressions is an important part of ad business - it's similar to billboard and magazine ads, in that the user don't click them, but hopefully remembers - if nothing else subconsciously, so the next time they're at the store they pick the goods with the logo and color combinations that's been impressed on them.

Comment: Re:quiet = powerful (Score 1) 116

by arth1 (#47822235) Attached to: The Quiet Revolution of Formula E Electric Car Racing

The whole point of Formula 1 is that all cars are under a very tight parameter restriction so the race is in the hands of the driver more than it is the mechanics.

That's today's F1, with fuel flow and rpm restrictions. The F1 of yesteryear was very different, and there could be extreme differences. Some cars went much faster, but accellerated slower. Others had an emphasis on brakes or curve hugging. Or on completing a race with one pit stop less.
I find F1 today completely uninteresting, much like a Indy cars with lower top speed. There's next to no difference between cars, and few overtakings. It's like the emphasis is on making it so uneventful that you can buy hotdogs without losing anything.
Bring back the 1000+ hp F1 engines, wide wings and wide tires. Let the drivers push the envelope. Because right now it's as boring as Indy cars.
(And bring back the Killer B rally class too.)

Comment: Re:Phones + 1 laptop. (Score 1) 260

by arth1 (#47760093) Attached to: How many devices are connected to your home Wi-Fi?

Yup.. gigabit is USELESS in the home unless you have a home server.

"A" home server? Who would have just one?
Local DNS, DHCP and DCHPv6 servers need failover, and onsite online backups are done cross-server.
So I'd think any nerd would have at least two.

I also have two different wired networks - one that is used for clients to talk to the servers and the gateway, and one that's used for servers to talk between themselves. There's no reason for traffic between a client and a server or internet to get slowed down just because one server backs itself up to another.

And two different Wireless N networks - one 2.4 and one 5 GHz. That way, using one band won't slow down the other.

Comment: Re:not so fast (Score 1) 128

by arth1 (#47757201) Attached to: Why Do Humans Grow Up So Slowly? Blame the Brain

Wow, I can't believe that someone missed the point so completely!
The point being that it is unlikely that the brain is stealing the glucose and thus stunting growth like the article supports, because when kids are fat, that means they have metabolized carbs->glucose->fat, and thus have had plenty of glucose. That fat kids' bones don't appear to shoot past normal kids in growth strongly suggest that there are other reasons why kids don't grow physically to adults in half the time.

I suggest that being smaller and having different proportions to adults triggers the "do not harm" and "protect" instinct in most adults, thus increasing the chance of reaching adulthood and bringing one's genes on.
There are probably other survival advantages, like having less mass and more flexible bones might be adventageous at the age one learns to climb trees and cliffs.
When reaching the age where one is going to procreate and bring up own children, the advantage is to have a more adult body, capable of hunting, foraging, carrying and protecting.

Get it now, or are you going to get sidetracked by a single word again?

Comment: Re:not so fast (Score 1) 128

by arth1 (#47755677) Attached to: Why Do Humans Grow Up So Slowly? Blame the Brain

Imply in real-world terms means hint at.

No, it doesn't. You have the wrong idea of what "imply" means. It is not a synonym for "hint at" or "suggest" any more than "implication" is a synonym for "hint" or "suggestion". It is a near synonym to "mean".

That you have two X chromosomes and no Y chromosome implies that you are female. It does not merely hint at it.

When I used the word imply in the real world example of my GPP, it was to say exactly what I said. Not your uneducated guess at what it means.

Comment: not so fast (Score 5, Insightful) 128

by arth1 (#47753549) Attached to: Why Do Humans Grow Up So Slowly? Blame the Brain

That there is an inverse correlation between brain glucose use and body growth does not imply that the brain's use of glucose stymies the growth until later.
If that were the case, kids who are overfed carbohydrates would be smarter and taller, not fatter and dumber.

My guess is that slow growth is selected for because children who look like children enjoy special care and protection by adults. Growing to adult size by age 7 might be detrimental to survival.

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.